University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2015-09-08 The Effectiveness of Large Scale Transformational Change Across a School District Bass, Gregory Bass, G. (2015). The Effectiveness of Large Scale Transformational Change Across a School District (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/28074 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/2437 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca
Transcript
University of Calgary
PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository
Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations
2015-09-08
The Effectiveness of Large Scale Transformational
Change Across a School District
Bass, Gregory
Bass, G. (2015). The Effectiveness of Large Scale Transformational Change Across a School
District (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
doi:10.11575/PRISM/28074
http://hdl.handle.net/11023/2437
doctoral thesis
University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their
thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through
licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under
copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.
Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca
UNIVERS ITY OF CALGARY
The Effectiveness of Large Scale
Transformational Change Across a School District
by
Gregor y Bass
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
Abstract This research describes characteristics of large-scale organizational change in one mid-sized
school district in Alberta, Canada. The period of the case study was from 2007–2011 within a
district that was showing signs of significant change in operations. A review of two public large
sets of data, coupled with external interest in the work of the district, confirmed that change was
occurring of some type and to some degree. An outside researcher conducted interviews with
school-based and district leaders to identify what characteristics and actions had been put in
place and to describe if they were successful. Research participants identified four characteristics
of large-scale change that were impactful: a collaboratively built and universally administered
strategic plan, a focus on building individual capacity through a professional learning model, the
establishment of collaborative structures to co-create the future, and the fostering of high
organizational trust. Participants also identified accountability and communication structures as
important. Regardless of whether readers are convinced that the district fundamentally changed
its practice, described as second-order change, the characteristics identified by the leaders as
impactful for the attempted change are important. At a time when there is growing consensus to
modernize antiquated paradigms of public education delivery and structure, these findings can
provide a structure of what to do and what to avoid when embarking upon this type of change.
Change of this magnitude is not for the faint of heart, especially given that all change
characteristics are interdependent and must be initiated at the same time, which is vastly different
from 20th century incremental change in education.
ii
Acknowledgments
The completion of this project would not have been possible without the support of many
people. First, I would like to acknowledge the University of Calgary. M y journey has been long
and meandering but support has been unwavering. Specifically, I would like to thank Dr. Dianne
Gereluk, my advisor, for her advice, wisdom, and support through this process. Many other
faculty members, including Dr. Sumara, Dr. Friesen, and Dr. Brandon, have all shown me
tremendous support. My research assistant, Tyla Charbonneau, was a pleasure to work with and
worked very hard. And my editing team at Editarians was a talented and dedicated group of
professionals who enabled this dissertation to be ready for publishing.
I must also thank the many great people of Rock y View School Division #41. The Board
of Trustees always believed in me and supported this journey. The central office staff, principals,
teachers, and support staff were always wonderful to work with, and I miss them all very much.
The parents of that learning community were supportive, excited, and critical all at the same
time, which made us better. And to the students, an absolutely wonderful collection of young
learners and leaders, you were my inspiration throughout this project.
And finally, yet most important, thank you to m y family—m y amazing wife of 25 years
and my children. You always believed in me and understood the many sacrifices of time to
complete this work. Without your patience, support, and belief in me, I would not have finished.
iii
Dedication
To our youth—our future—I dedicate this work to make education more engaging and
relevant to prepare you to lead our planet into the latter half of the 21st century . . . a planet we
will have bequeathed to you with many complex challenges.
iv
5
Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1: Overview of the Study .................................................................................................. 1
Context of Study.......................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 8 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................ 8 Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 11
Chapter 2: Literature Review........................................................................................................ 14 Resistance to Educational Change ............................................................................................ 14 Educational Change Imperative ................................................................................................ 19
Twenty-First-Century Learning ................................................................................................ 24 Critique of 21st-Century Learning ............................................................................................ 28 Transformational Change .......................................................................................................... 30 District Leadership .................................................................................................................... 34
Positive effects of district leadership. .................................................................................... 38 Characteristics of effective district leadership....................................................................... 39 Collaboration and trust. ......................................................................................................... 50 Critique of district leadership ................................................................................................ 53 Critical district leadership practices....................................................................................... 55 Categorizations of organizational change.............................................................................. 58 Implications for district leadership in 2015 ........................................................................... 64
Case Study................................................................................................................................. 68 Research Design ........................................................................................................................ 70 Participants ................................................................................................................................ 72 Data Collection.......................................................................................................................... 73 Data Analysis and S ynthesis ..................................................................................................... 75 Ethical Considerations............................................................................................................... 76
Publically reported large-scale assessment performance improved significantly over the 4- year period. ............................................................................................................................ 82 Survey results improved from 2008–2011. ........................................................................... 85
Qualitative Findings .................................................................................................................. 90 Finding 1: Collaborative creation of a strategic plan was both clarifying and empowering. 90 Finding 2: Building staff capacity through a new professional learning framework was integral to strengthening system capacity. ............................................................................. 92 Finding 3: Collaborative structures and distributed leadership fostered a leadership team striving for collective impact. ................................................................................................ 95 Finding 4: Leadership behaviour was focused on building trust. .......................................... 97 Finding 5: Accountability .................................................................................................... 100 Finding 6: Strong communications were identified as important for cultural change. ....... 104
Unanticipated Findings ........................................................................................................... 107 Finding 1: S ystem alignment. .............................................................................................. 107 Finding 2: Clarity of vision.................................................................................................. 108 Finding 3: Weakness of accountability and communication correlations ........................... 108 Critique ................................................................................................................................ 109
Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 111 Chapter 5: Analysis and Interpretation of Findings .................................................................... 113
Collaborative Creation of a Strategic Plan Was Both Clarifying and Empowering ............... 113 Building Staff Capacit y Through a New Professional Learning Framework Was Integral to Strengthening S ystem Capacity .............................................................................................. 118 Collaborative Structures and Distributed Leadership Fostered a Leadership Team Striving for Collective Impact .................................................................................................................... 122 Leadership Behaviour Was Focused on Building Trust.......................................................... 125 Accountability Was Frequently Identified as a Driver for Organizational Change ................ 127 Communications Were Identified as Important for Cultural Change ..................................... 130 Categorization of Organizational Change ............................................................................... 134 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 137
References ................................................................................................................................... 148 Appendix A: Three-Year Plan Consolidated Feedback .............................................................. 161 Appendix B: Research Overview................................................................................................ 178 Appendix C: Demographic Profile Form.................................................................................... 179 Appendix D: Consent Form ........................................................................................................ 180 Appendix E: Interview Guide ..................................................................................................... 184 Appendix F: Alberta Education Narrative .................................................................................. 186 Appendix G: RVS Narrative ....................................................................................................... 211 Appendix H: Alberta Education Letter of Results ...................................................................... 225 Appendix I: Four-Year Results Tables by Function ................................................................... 227
vii
List of Tables
Table 1. Effective District Leadership Characteristics According to Various Researchers ......... 49 Table 2. District Enrolment Growth for Study Period .................................................................. 79 Table 3. APORI 2011 ................................................................................................................... 84 Table 4. RVS Accountability Pillar .............................................................................................. 87 Table 5. Central Leaders’ Views Correlated to Change Themes................................................ 103 Table 6. School Leaders’ Views Correlated to Change Themes ................................................ 104
Table I1. Satisfaction With Overall Quality of Education.......................................................... 227 Table I2. Annual Student Drop-Out Rate ................................................................................... 227 Table I3. Overall Agreement Students Are Safe at School ........................................................ 227 Table I4. Overall Satisfaction With Program of Studies ............................................................ 228 Table I5. High School Completion Rates Within Three Years of Starting Grade 10................. 228 Table I6. Students Writing Four or More Diploma Exams Within 3 Years of Entering Grade 10 ..................................................................................................................................................... 228 Table I7. Percentage of Grades 3, 6, and 9 Acceptable Standard on PATs ................................ 229 Table I8. Percentage of Grades 3, 6, and 9 Excellence Standard on PATs ................................ 229 Table I9. Percentage of Acceptable Achievement on Diploma Exams ...................................... 230 Table I10. Percentage of Excellence Achievement on Diploma Exams .................................... 230 Table I11. Grade 12 Students Eligible for a Rutherford Scholarship ......................................... 231 Table I12. High School to Post-Secondary Transition Rate Within 6 Years of Entering Grade 10 ..................................................................................................................................................... 231 Table I13. Agreement Students Are Taught to Be Successful at Work...................................... 231 Table I14. Agreement Students Model Active Citizenship ........................................................ 232 Table I15. Satisfaction With Involvement in Decisions About Child’s Education .................... 232 Table I16. Agreement Schools Have Improved or Stayed the Same the Last Three Years ....... 232 Table I17. Teachers Reporting Professional Learning Contributes to Their Growth ................. 231
List of Figures
Figure 1. Portrait of a 21st century learner (RVS, 2008)................................................................ 5
1
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study
Changing an organization is a difficult task. Leaders must understand the degree of
comfort with the status quo and recognize that ultimately organizations do not change, people do
(Senge, 1990). Leaders must find ways to instill a sense of purpose and need for organizational
change, to improve the core function and continually improve, which in turn enhances viability
and value as an organization (Cuban, 1998; Fullan, 2009a).
This research examined the extent to which Rocky View School Division #41, commonly
known as Rocky View Schools (RVS), was able to initiate and sustain transformational change
into a 21st-century learning organization from 2007 to 2011. Briefly stated, a 21st-century
learning organization is one that embraces new age competencies such as innovation, creativity,
collaboration, and communication through organizational learning structures in which all
participate. I present a more fulsome discussion of this type of organization in Chapter 2. This
study is anchored in the analysis of what Waters and Marzano (2006) called second-order
change. This t ype of change is foundational and impacts all facets of an organization. The
current way of operating is abandoned, replaced by a learning organization with clarity of
purpose and a commitment to restructure all aspects of the system around stakeholders—in this
case, students.
I also considered Mourshed, Chijioke, and Barber’s (2010) work of categorizing
education systems and their transformative change. In short, Mourshed et al. studied education
systems around the world, determined a measurement to identify different stages of
transformation, and further presented jurisdictions making the most gains over the last decade. I
compared my anal ysis of the extent to which transformational change occurred in RVS, once
filtered through the characteristics of second-order change, to the poor-to-fair, fair-to-good,
2
good-to-great, and great-to-excellent intervention stages of district characteristics. I identified
district findings drawing from Mourshed et al.’s forms of categorization.
I focused on a 4-year period made up of 1 year of planning and 3 years of
implementation. Using a constructivist perspective (Gray, 1997), I describe challenges,
initiatives, and indicators of enacting substantive change. I examined publically reported and
large-scale quantitative data to identify changes in performance, and 24 open-ended interviews
of school and district leaders provided qualitative findings. Educational change is commonly
thought to be a long and difficult process primarily due to the fact that education is a pillar of a
strong and stable society, and any destabilization of that supportive structure evokes passion
from many different stakeholder groups (Levin, 2010). Within districts, leaders often see
exemplary classroom practices or school-based practices, and yet rarel y see large-scale change
across an entire district. This research examined the extent of systemic change that RVS
attempted as a function of strategic planning and implementation.
Context of Study
RVS serves students in areas immediately east, west, and north of the city of Calgar y,
Canada. As of 2012, RVS served over 18,000 students in 42 schools, including three community
learning centres, three Hutterite colony schools, and two faith-based alternative schools. The
three major urban areas consist of Chestermere to the east, Airdrie to the north, and Cochrane to
the west, as well as rural areas surrounding each centre. RVS has been rapidly growing at a rate
of 3 to 5% per year, with all urban areas projected to double in population over the next 15 years.
The system employs approximately 2,000 staff, and as such, is the largest single employer in
each urban centre, operating within a (2013) budget of approximately $200 million. A seven-
member Board of Trustees, elected every 3 years in a ward system, governs the district. The
3
district’s central office, called the Education Centre, employs approximately 120 people,
including a senior executive team made up of four associate superintendents and the
superintendent of schools.
Upon the resignation of the previous superintendent, the 2004–2007 Board of Trustees
conducted a superintendent search and hired me as its new chief executive officer in September
2006. As the new superintendent, I realized the potential to lead a good school division to become a great school division in the best interest of students. Upon commencing the position on
January 2, 2007, I booked a facility tour to identify where the schools were in each community
and know what they looked like both inside and out. Upon completion of that tour, by the end of
January, m y focus shifted toward emphasizing a core vision and strategic direction for the
division’s 3-year plan (3YP). I learned that past practice included the hiring of an external
educational consultant to write the plan over the span of 1 to 2 weeks in the spring.
With an eye on the 3YP, I booked a second tour of all schools, this time focused on
instruction. Each visit was 2 hours in length and included 1 hour of dialoguing with the principal
about the school’s direction and connection to the district’s strategic direction, followed by 1
hour of visiting classrooms and interacting with students. A common theme emerged from the
visits, which concluded the first week of April: All principals were extremely passionate and
articulate about the school education plan but could not explain how it was aligned to the district
plan; 33 out of 40 principals could not even produce the district 3YP in their office. I perceived
that the district was operating as a s ystem of schools rather than a school system, and the
jurisdictional plan was little more than a compliance document to meet the requirements of
Alberta Education. 1
1 Alberta Education requires school boards to submit a rolling three-year plan by May 30 of each year.
4
To mobilize the organization in one common direction, a new process would be required
to build the plan, one that included many different stakeholders as co-constructors. Toward the
end of April 2007, and explaining the new process as a complexity before simplicity approach,
board approval was granted to embark upon a 12-month journey to build the 2008–2011 3YP, to
be completed by Ma y 2008. This 3-year strategic plan was developed in collaboration with 200
representatives of key stakeholder groupings, specifically students, teachers, support staff,
business leaders, political leaders, community leaders, school councils, trustees, and education
center staff (RVS, 2007). Broken up into four different 50-member heterogeneous cohorts, each
group met in May and October for one full day. On day one for each group, participants were
provided an overview of board requirements within the School Act and Government
Accountability Act in relation to the development of a 3YP acceptable to the Minister of
Education. The remainder of the day was spent identifying RVS priorities by answering one
simple question: “What does education need to look like in 2011 and beyond in RVS? ” (RVS,
2007). The consolidation of the feedback resulted in 22 priorities that became the starting point
for the second day of full meetings in the fall.
At the fall meetings, an overview was provided on the way to construct a strategic plan:
specifically, the meaning and purpose of a vision, mission, belief statements, goals, outcomes,
strategies, and measures. With 22 priorities clustered into eight thematic areas, and challenged
with a supplemental question to identify wa ys to measure RVS’ success, further consolidation of
all groups’ work was complete by Christmas of 2007. This consolidation set up a final day with
all 200 participants in February 2008. Prior to this culminating meeting, it became clear the
district needed research to underpin the eventual plan based upon what participants were saying:
They thought there was a significant gap between what and how the district was teaching
5
students and the way students learn and what they needed to learn for their success, armed with
new competencies in demand by employers.
The final day in Februar y involved a blend of homogenous and heterogeneous groupings,
and began with eight emerging goal areas, 36 outcomes, and countless strategies (see Appendix
A for the consolidated feedback). The generative day was spent editing, distilling, and refining
the 3YP much closer to draft form. During March and April 2008, the final revisionist work was
completed, and in May it was tabled and approved by the board.
A comprehensive literature review conducted by myself and central staff of the district
provided an overview of leading edge research into learning in the 21st century. Briefly stated,
different outcomes are required for 21st century learner success and a new, student-centric view
should be embraced, focused on competencies such as innovation, creative thought, and
collaboration (Alberta Education, 2010). Based on this research, and on feedback from the
consultations, the jurisdiction developed a visual representation of the 21st-century learner to
table with the group at the February meeting and to be used across the district (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Portrait of a 21st century learner (RVS, 2008). Reproduced with permission from
Rocky View School Division #41.
6
The portrait of the 21st century learner was distributed to, and displayed in, all areas of
the district, throughout the central services building, in principals’ offices, and throughout
schools in various places. The 10 competencies it lists are a crystallization of what various
research organizations and researchers articulated in relation to student competencies for the 21st
century. In addition to contemporary competencies of problem solving, innovation, and
collaboration, which were aligned to emerging private sector demands, communication skills late
in the first decade of the new millennium had certainly changed in relation to even the decade
before. A drive for global stewardship and awareness coupled with civic engagement also
emerged as competencies of 21st-century learners. The ability to be self-directed, along with the
previously stated competency of problem solving, clearly emerged from new organizational
structures and employers’ desire for new workers with far less focus on technical knowledge.
And lastly, information, media, financial, and economic literacies expressed the need to foster
competency in new global communication and media networks, develop specific skills in areas
of 3D game design and application development, and understand rapidly changing financial and
global economic structures. These 10 competencies were original to the district when published
in 2008 as there was no conclusive evidence or universally accepted definition of 21st-century
competencies. One could make the same statement in 2015.
The context would not be complete without identifying some other initiatives that were
started as an outcome of the discussions being held amongst the greater collaborative group.
Most critical was the revisioning of professional development in the district; discussions elicited
a need for dedicated time for professional learning. After a broad-based survey of the educational
community, the training structure shifted from five to 10 professional learning da ys—seven da ys
7
of school-based learning and three communities of practice days. Professional development, seen
as an event, was to be replaced with professional learning: an ongoing, embedded, systematic,
and collegial capacity-building structure (RVS, 2009).
Other concurrent projects that created conditions to emerge as a new district included
1. Rebranding b y developing a new logo, mission, vision, beliefs, identity, and visual
presence;
2. Launching a new accountability structure;
3. Developing a corporate flag and district mascot;
4. Reorganizing the education center;
5. Building a strong communications department;
6. Deploying laptops to all teachers and administrators;
7. Decommissioning computer labs and desktop machines;
8. Establishing superintendent working committees made up of school and system
administrators;
9. Restructuring of principal meetings by level to leadership team meetings with all
focused on personal and systemic learning;
10. Developing a new jurisdictional website and aligned school websites with embedded
system identity;
11. Expecting that all employees and stakeholders be learners alongside students; and
12. Establishing a research-based foundation for what was emerging as the theme of the
plan. (RVS, 2008)
On August 20, 2008, the new 3YP, Engaging the 21st Century Learner (RVS, 2008), was
launched as the vision for the district. Following the launch, the district began to experience
8
shifts in the status quo. Internal and external measures of performance demonstrated significant
change as compared to five- and 10-year historical data. Many processes, structures, and
stakeholder expectations changed, and detailed actions and results were determined, to ultimately
inform both the school district community and the broader educational community to advance
our understanding of organizational change. This examination of the extent of change informed
both the internal school district community and broader communities about what occurred and
what can be learned from it.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research was to examine the extent to which the district transformed
into a 21st-century learning organization. Specifically, the research addressed the following
questions:
1. To what extent did large-scale transformational change occur in the school district
from 2007 to 2011?
2. What essential characteristics of large-scale transformational change were identified
as impactful in the district from 2007 to 2011?
In considering the research questions, I completed a critical analysis of the conditions
prior to and following the implementation of change efforts, considering internal and external
indicators of change. Further, I examined the internal and external factors that were implemented
to enable systemic change across the district.
Significance of the Study
Education across industrialized nations is in need of transformational change to prepare
students for a world that has already changed in terms of globalization, social media, information
accessibility, and environmental stewardship (Partnership for 21st Century Skills [P21], 2009).
9
Learning competencies such as collaboration and innovative and creative thinking must be
aligned to the way in which students already prefer to communicate, access information, and
create knowledge. Focus on behaviorist and cognitivist paradigms will continue to drive students
away from traditional education systems to have their needs met elsewhere (Friesen, 2010).
According to Barber (2014), businesses are in demand of knowledge-era workers, described as
individuals who create new knowledge through collaborative and creative ways of working from
previous sets of past information. Knowledge acquisition alone is no longer a benchmark of
success. The world economy no longer pays people for what they know, but for what they can do
with that knowledge.
From broader concerns about the inflexible and increasingly outdated nature of schools,
the significance of this study was multifaceted. First, this study examined the ways that one
school district attempted to transform as a public organization. Second, it explored whether the
explicit shift in the 3YP toward student engagement, constructivist classrooms, and student-
centric decision-making had an impact on student learning. And finally, it sought to identify
characteristics of large-scale transformation by extrapolating correlated district leadership
behaviours that positively affected student learning outcomes.
The school district portrait of a 21st-century learner identified competencies considered to
be beneficial for 21st-century success. The initiative that emerged in the school district was to
become a 21st-century learning organization whereby all stakeholders were learners. In this way,
the study is significant in looking at transformational change from a macro rather than a micro
perspective (e.g., professional development or school-based initiatives). This study examined the
systemic change needed to transform all individual practices and processes, which could lead to
organizational transformation and mobilize the strategic plan (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009).
10
Undoubtedly, previous societal demands have required basic skills and knowledge to
advance and accelerate. This current demand, however, and subsequent transformation across the
world at varying rates, necessitates an effort to modernize a traditional education system to align
with a rapidly changing and increasingly complex world. Traditional knowledge-based skills and
rote memorization of facts simply will not do (P21, 2009). If s ystems are to be student-centric,
then all facets of the current educational structure must change, due to the fact the education
system was built in and for an era of industrialization. This change, from facilities and classroom
furniture to the role of teachers and structure of the learning day—and all points in between—
would equal a transformed system where the current status quo was no longer discernible.
The significance of this study, therefore, is to inform and influence better educational
policy and practice at a macro level, either by describing what to do or what not to do when
planning to transform an organization. It has significance locally, provincially, nationally, and
globall y, in public and private sectors, and in parent communities to the broader population
forming a culture. A common perception of public organizations, especially within libertarian
nodes in industrialized nations, is that they are slow to change (Roland, 2004). Private
organizations operate within a perpetual risk of bankruptcy and are therefore motivated to make
swift and deep change as necessary, depending upon market demand and forces (Collins, 2001).
Public organizations, as pillars of societies, impact many citizens directly or indirectly and
change to the status quo deconstructs existential paradigms; consequently, they often architect
slow and gradual change because of resistance at the core of communities. This study, thus,
examined the extent of second-order change within a relatively large public-sector organization
and evaluated measures of success, as well as benchmarks against both good-to-great and great-
to-excellent intervention stages of organizational development (Mourshed et al., 2010). The
11
greatest significance of this study ma y be to find out if a public organization can begin to change
the status quo in a relatively short period of time. This may be very significant to education as a
public institution, one that is anchored in historical contexts and understandings, to emerge
serving its primary stakeholder—students—in a profoundly changed and impactful way.
Twenty-first century teaching and learning has many challenges. Although people may
agree that schools need to teach learners differently to foster different outcomes, and that
everyone must be learners, the term “21st century” may be considered esoteric by some because
the second decade of the new century is well underway. In addition, there is much debate about
what 21st-century teaching and learning really is. A global definition is not at this point accepted
or understood. The greatest challenge, however, even if a majority of people agree that educators
must teach differently in systems, and even if a universal definition is recognized, is effecting
second-order change (Waters & Marzano, 2006) in a public institution that has remained
relatively static for over 100 years. Therefore, the task is to explore the extent of change in the
status quo in a public education system while striving to develop modern competencies in
today’s learners. Definitions
For the purposes of this study, I offer the following definitions:
• 21st-century learners: A generation of young learners who are growing up in the
information revolution, and to whom knowledge transmission is not the learning
objective (Ledward & Hirata, 2011).
• 21st-century teachers: Teachers acting as co-constructors of knowledge who
• School board: The corporate board that fulfills a governance function, including
hiring and evaluating the superintendent as its only employee, and ensuring that
all students have the opportunity to fulfill the education requirements as legislated
by the Ministry of Education.
• Superintendent: Often referred to as the chief executive officer or chief
educational officer of the board, the superintendent is responsible for all district
operations.
• Three-year plan (3Y P): The 3YP is an annual strategic planning document
required by the Minister of Education and distributed to the public (Alberta
Education, 2015).
• Trust: The acceptance of vulnerability in the hands of another (Tschannen-Moran
& Ho y, 2000).
14
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This research is grounded in key understandings of the resistance to systemic educational
change, 21st-century learning, transformational change, and district leadership to enact
transformational change. The key understandings are researched within the context of a 21st-
century learning organization and the factors within a system to enact and enable change. The
following sections provide the theoretical underpinnings of the research.
Resistance to Educational Change
Within the public sector, foundational services such as health care and education require
great change effort to disrupt the status quo and have broad-based societal impact (Barber, 2008).
In the private sector, new companies flourish or become bankrupt, grounded in a profit motive
for the owners, whether individual entrepreneurs or shareholders. In the public sector, core
services of health and education cannot declare bankruptcy and are driven not by profit but by
service to the public. Change to such essential services can invoke fear amongst the broader
public. Parents and community members have a personal experience of schooling that affects
their view of what education should entail. Preparing youth for a changing future, which requires
a changed educational system, is therefore a daunting task.
Kotter (2007) proposed eight errors of transformational change, consistently repeated b y
organizations of all types, that explain why most transformational efforts fail:
1. Not establishing a sense of urgenc y. Best interpreted as a moral imperative, it can be
explained as a clear understanding and articulation of the core question of, “Why do
we need to change? ”
15
2. Not creating a powerful enough coalition. Chief executives frequently underestimate
the need for a group with enough power to lead the change and encouragement to
work as a team.
3. Lacking a vision. A lack of importance is given to creating a vision to direct the
change effort and strategies for achieving it.
4. Undercommunicating the vision by a power of 10. Companies often do not use every
vehicle possible to communicate the new vision and strategies and do not model new
behaviours through the guiding coalition.
5. Not empowering others to act on the vision. Executives must eliminate obstacles to
change, focusing on those that undermine the vision, and encourage risk-taking and
nontraditional ideas.
6. Not planning for or creating short-term wins. The organization is in desperate need of
early and frequent wins via visible performance improvements that are purposefully
created.
7. Not consolidating improvements, yielding still more change. Leaders do not
frequently use the increased credibility for good b y continuing to eliminate processes
that do not fit the vision, focus hiring on people that can deliver the new vision, or
reinvigorate process with new projects, themes, and people aligned to the vision.
8. Not institutionalizing new approaches. A lack of articulation between the new
behaviours and success is common, as is a lack of leadership succession.
Kotter (2007) framed his research in terms of why transformation fails and the
predictable and preventable eight steps, but this can simply be reversed to express that he has
proposed eight steps to transformation. Transformative efforts are hard and require deliberate
16
action and relentless pursuit of the vision through consistent focus and, from a leadership
perspective, courage. The status quo is a very comfortable place to be, but nothing ingenious or
progressive was ever developed through admiration of the existing state of affairs.
Within an educational context, Fullan (2011) proposed four wrong drivers, defined as
deliberate forces that have little chance of improving student learning:
1. Accountability: using test results and teacher appraisal to reward or punish teachers and
schools instead of building individual and organizational capacity;
2. Individual teacher and leadership quality: focusing on individual teacher and leader
solutions instead of group solutions though collaboration and capacity building;
3. Technology: investing in and assuming that the wonders of the digital world will carry
the day instead of focusing on instructional design; and
4. Fragmented strategies: using a barrage of strategies that lack coherence as opposed to
systemic integration to accomplish a vision. (p. 5)
Like Kotter’s (2007) eight errors, Fullan’s (2011) wrong drivers can be reversed to
extrapolate the right drivers. The right drivers, ones that positively impact student learning, are
effective because they focus on changing the culture (Fullan, 2011, p. 5). These right drivers—
capacity building, group work, instruction, and systemic solutions—work specifically on
changing the culture of school systems, whereas the wrong drivers change structures and
procedures but not the root of the culture.
Within education systems, there is evidence of exemplary classrooms led by individual
teachers who demonstrate significant successes on student learning outcomes and with student
engagement—what Fink (2000) referred to as lighthouses, or as beacon schools in the United
Kingdom. These schools aim to produce exemplary student performance and engagement across
17
all classrooms and are innovative and creative in their work (Fink, 2000, p. 23). Led b y the
principal, these schools become the measure to which all other schools are compared within the
system, and the standard to which all others aspire. The task within education has been to
replicate lighthouse schools’ practice so as to elevate student learning in other schools. Sadly,
upon further analysis, investigation has revealed that very little knowledge transfer meaningfully
occurs between the beacon schools and others within the same district (Borman et al., 2007).
Less common again are lighthouse school districts. The literature is virtually silent in this
area, whereby districts have schools aligned toward a consistent strategic vision, call for a
transformation of practice and change of the second order, and compile year-over-year increases
in both qualitative and quantitative measures. In short, a district of this nature would be
comprised of all lighthouse schools, not copies of one another, but bounded by a cohesive district
vision and student-centric practices. If possible, the measures of increased engagement, shifted
teaching practice, high outcome levels of learning, and an expectation that everyone is a learner
may validate the emergence of a 21st-century learning organization. S ystems largely fail at this
endeavour for many reasons, most notably because of the systematic and structural barriers that
impede districts to transform; a wide body of research has documented the failure of “top-down”
initiated reform (Mulford & Bishop, 1999). Further, public institutions, due to the degree of
societal impact, experience significant resistance from communities that want to retain the status
quo. The status quo, after all, is what people understand, especially within the context of
education, because most citizens, as noted, have personal experience attending a traditional
school structure. Within a clear and well-articulated moral imperative for change, the natural
instinct of citizens is to maintain what they experientially understand. This dynamic exists within
the education system even with citizens who would openly admit that their educational
18
experience was neither engaging nor valuable, but rather a process they had to endure to move
on with life.
Fullan (2009a) has argued that systemic reform requires a tri-level emphasis in school,
district, and government policy and practice, and some jurisdictions in the world (Finland, Hong
Kong, and Alberta, Canada) are making these efforts. Organizational change characteristics are
interdependent and must be initiated at the same time (Fullan & Bo yle, 2014). Change efforts of
the 20th century were one dimensional. Incremental, one-off changes characterized the second
half of the last century but failed to truly change the culture, which, in turn, led to three separate
excellence reform movements because the education system was perceived to be failing society
(A. Taylor, 2001). Fullan and Bo yle (2014) have argued for several large-scale and systematic
changes to be embarked upon at the same time to truly be successful at transforming the system,
and for system alignment of vision and purpose from classroom teachers to principals to
superintendents to trustees to governments. If all key actors of the education system are not
aligned, then mandates are diffused or even lost and independent practices occur among districts
and schools.
Moreover, Fullan and Boyle (2014) have emphasized that simply changing the
professional development structure or junior high social studies curriculum, as examples, will not
result in transformation. The essential characteristics (uniform vision, learning organization,
collaboration, instructional design) for true organizational change must be initiated
simultaneously, which in turn creates fear within the system among teachers, principals,
superintendents, and trustees. External stakeholders will be fearful because of change of a public
institution, historically documented since the early 1970s as a fear of progressivism (A. Taylor,
2001), and internal stakeholders will be fearful of too much change too quickly. The research is
19
scarce on large-scale organizational transformation, likely for this reason, while students remain
served in 2015 largely through old paradigms.
Levin (2013) placed the failure of reform efforts squarely on the political nature of
government implementation of reform policy and the lack of focus on research-based practices.
If governments could articulate a vision of education and write policy to support it regardless of
the political climate, and if school districts and schools implemented the practices that educators
know are best for student learning, s ystemic reform would be possible. The risk in this assertion
is that there is inconsistency among educators regarding the best learning practices. Levin (2013)
has argued for incremental change, not transformational, by adopting and implementing what
educators know from research about exemplary teaching and learning. Examining the extent to
which transformational change occurred in this school district is therefore an important analysis,
given the apparent lack of true macro-level reform in systems, and should serve to provide an
exposure to what is successful and unsuccessful in these change efforts.
Educational Change Imperative
The history of public education is varied and diverse across North America yet strangel y
similar at the same time. Based upon a meta-analysis of research focusing on student learning
and achievement, Friesen (2010) contended that there have been only three education paradigms
since the introduction of free and public education systems. The first paradigm was largel y based
on a behaviorist theoretical conception, which mirrored what societal expectations and economic
demands placed on the system. From approximately 1880 to 1960, common school indicators
drew upon this behaviorist view. The perception was that schooling should parallel the
industrialized model of factories; specifically, students were to be punctual and quiet, move by
20
bells, and be disciplined if they were not behaving appropriately. Memorization and regurgitation
of facts and processes also typified this era.
In the early 1960s, with the escalation of the Cold War, curriculum redesign and
standardized testing measures characterized the cognitivist paradigm. Students needed to absorb
as much content as possible and demonstrate that knowledge on time-bound, large-scale
measures that sorted students in two groups—academic and nonacademic—while teachers
lectured and maintained the behaviorist expectations of before (Friesen, 2010). In the late 20th
century, the third and current paradigm of constructivism emerged, characterized by the shift
from acquiring knowledge to maximizing the creation of new knowledge, while embracing
creativity, collaboration, and innovation as the new world order skills. Schools are either now
immersed in or resisting this current constructivist paradigm. While a repositioning of learning
and teaching is sporadically occurring within this constructivist paradigm, the historical vestiges
of the previous two paradigms are still deeply embedded in education systems.
Behaviourism. A free education system at the point of delivery, accessible by all, was
originally designed to produce factory workers in the age of industrialization. This behaviorist
paradigm taught students how to behave, become automated, and regurgitate facts, such as
capitals of provinces. The following best describes the thinking early in the 20th century:
The history of compulsory education can be read as a positive, progressive effort to
include and provide for all students irrespective of their backgrounds. However, even if
one celebrates this inclusive mission, the architectural manifestations remain those of
standardization and compartmentalization: every student has a place, and all are intended
to remain in those places. This older school model continues to serve as a template for
new schools and schooling, and is clearly linked to another prominent institutional order
21
of the early 20th centur y: Fordism. Characterized by mass production, mass consumption,
vertical integration, standardization, and interchangeability, Fordism encapsulates an
ideology of rigid economic efficiency that penetrated deeply into private and public
domains, such as industry and education. (Monahan, 2005, pp. 22–23)
Further, students were organized in rows and moved by bells. Subject disciplines were
segregated like factor y organization and students were punished if late or absent as they would
be in factories. Students were taught how to position their arm for cursive writing and punished
if not demonstrating proper form. They moved through the s ystem in batches or cohorts
determined by age, not competence. Teaching students how to behave in a group d ynamic was as
important as learning basic literacy and numerac y skills because independent, nonconformist
behaviour on the factory line would diminish productivity and potentially lead to injury. With
this structure and purpose the public education system was born. F. Taylor (1911/1967), in his
seminal work The Principles of Scientific Management, supported the theoretical and practical
underpinnings of the structure of public education. This was not his purpose, of course, as his
work was designed to guide industrialists to structure factories and manage workers. F. Taylor
proposed ways to organize workers, structure tasks, monitor work performance, arrange
managerial processes, and put people in areas of strength. When actualized, his paradigm
modelled only one right way to do things. Expressed another way, public education in North
America and Europe was initially designed to model the managerial structures of factory s ystems
at the height of the industrialization era.
Cognitivism. The cognitivist paradigm emerged in the 1960s, and was evidenced by
overarching curriculum redesign to demand more content knowledge of learners. This first wave
of excellence reform in education (A. Taylor, 2001) was largel y due to the emergence of the
22
Cold War and two dichotomous ideologies of political and economic systems. With the
successful launch of Sputnik 1 by the Soviet Union in 1957, a scathing critique emerged in the
West in relation to an education system that was failing to produce enough engineers, physicists,
mathematicians, and scientists that would vault liberal democracies to dominate and advance
society.
The pressure to compete against communist ideology was palpable at the dawn of the 1960s. Congress poured hundreds of millions of dollars into initiatives to improve outcomes and
rigor, in an attempt to produce more scientists of all kinds and of a higher quality. By 1961,
education was the scapegoat for losing the race to space that dominated the decade after WWII
(Hartman, 2008).
The response in relation to education was to rewrite curriculum to include more content.
The belief was that education needed to teach more outcomes to produce higher performing
graduates. The unintended consequence was to create a pedagogical process that further
embedded content drivers, a dissemination of knowledge process that was best facilitated
through a lecture format, in alignment with the elder system of universities. Further
compounding the impact of this teaching process was the pressure placed upon educators to
deliver an overwhelming number of teaching outcomes in a limited time. Teachers taught
courses and students either learned the information, determined by their ability to regurgitate
facts on tests, or they didn’t. It was a zero-sum game of pass or fail. Interesting to note here is
that both the behaviourist and cognitivist paradigms live on today in our modern education
systems, and form the basis for regressive thinkers to resist attempts to modernize education.
Constructivism. The third and current paradigm is constructivist, empowering learners
to take ownership of their learning as teachers facilitate their navigation through curricular
23
objectives via authentic and cross-disciplinary projects, all the while unlocking the power of
technology as an accelerator and viewing time and place as increasingly irrelevant to learning.
The seminal work in relation to social constructivism is that of Vygotsk y (1978). He believe
learning must be situated within the social context. Applied to a education context,
constructivism therefore became a learning-by-doing approach rather than observing and
listening only. The prior knowledge that a student has about a concept or situation must be
critiqued and re-evaluated to deepen their understanding. Given that this original understanding
is constructed in a social context, this learning process is most effectively completed within the
same social context. According to Vygotsk y:
Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level
and, later on, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then
inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to
logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as
actual relationships between individuals (p.57).
Pedagogicall y, the focus is on student collaboration to answer essential questions and
foster big ideas. Most commonly, this work is facilitated through project-based learning, where
students work on the completion of specific projects as a means to demonstrate curricular
competencies, or inquiry-based learning, where students begin with open-ended questions and
navigate through a learning process, again demonstrating multiple curricular competencies along
the way. This pedagogy significantly delineates the role of a teacher from predominantly
information disseminator to facilitator of knowledge construction, which can be skilfully
personalized to maximize student engagement (Friesen, 2009). Therefore, if a school jurisdiction
can make this transformation, it is critical to share with the education community to prepare
24
learners for their future, a prosperous future, not for our past. Ultimately, then, the significance
of the study ma y indeed be to shape future generations and the way in which our future
economies function.
Twenty-First-Century Learning
Twenty-first century learning is a response to the lack of change in educational
organizations. As a construct, 21st-century learning actualizes constructivism in systems,
schools, and classrooms, while fostering competencies in youth more aligned to life early in the
21st century (Gra y, 1997). Dynamic and successful businesses today (e.g., Apple, Google,
Facebook), in this early stage of the 21st century, have embraced a new way of doing business.
Teams are created to collaborate and cocreate new ideas, practices, and innovations. These
businesses understand that current and future success requires innovating past their competition
and looking for creative workers who demonstrate high character rather than high credentials.
New and successful companies early in the 21st century do not embrace, or even understand,
19th and 20th century business practices that dominate thinking in traditional large companies (e.g., Coca-Cola, Exxon Mobil, Walmart).
Although the purpose of public education is always a topic of debate, and is not primarily
to prepare youth to join large corporations, the positive pressure placed on education systems
through the wa y successful companies in 2015 structure their work is in itself a de-coupling of
the very foundation of an industrial model of education. One could argue, therefore, that just as
public education in the late 19th century was constructed in alignment with the factory model,
education systems must now align to a 21st-century model through inquir y-based learning
practices fostering 21st-century competencies of innovative thinking, creativity, collaboration,
and critical thinking. With ubiquitous access to information, students must learn to pack, unpack,
25
and repack knowledge into new chunks to create innovative solutions to challenges. Ironically,
this appears to be in alignment with Dewey’s (1897) original conception of a progressive public
education system in the late nineteenth century, with children learning through meaningful
experiences, but now in the information age with contemporary digital tools.
Education fails because it neglects this fundamental principle of the school as a form of
community life. It conceives the school as a place where certain information is to be
given, where certain lessons are to be learned, or where certain habits are to be formed.
(Dewey, 1897, p. 78)
The literature is relatively consistent explaining the competencies of 21st-century
learning. In addition to innovation, creativity, and collaboration, competencies of civic
engagement, social and environmental stewardship, financial and economic literacy,
communication ability, problem-solving and critical-thinking capability, self-directed learning,
and information and media literacy are common (P21, 2009). These characteristics of a 21st-
century learner are fundamentally different as essential outcomes of education than what
traditional cognitivist and behaviorist structures can provide. Twenty-first century teaching
requires that teachers shift their role from command and control to facilitating inquir y in and
among learners in a personalized yet collaborative manner.
Evidence within the literature in support of 21st-century learning s ystems has strongly
emerged over the last decade. Consistently, the literature is in support of the shift in education
toward fostering a new set of skills for a fundamentally different and rapidly changing world
Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2003, 2009; Thomas & Seel y-Brown, 2011).
Other nations, such as Singapore and Finland, are well on their way to transforming into
26
constructivist learning systems, while tightly structured systems of Hong Kong and Shanghai are
committed to the shift and taking what may be perceived as drastic action (OECD, 2010). In June
2014, Shanghai announced that it was considering withdrawing from taking part in PISA
(Program for International Student Assessment) exams after 2016, despite regularly performing
at or near the highest in the world (OECD, 2010). According to the OECD, Shanghai believes
the pressure placed upon students, parents, and teachers to perform on the large-scale assessment
is stifling risk-taking and a focus on innovation, creativity, and other 21st-century competencies
(Evans, 2014).
Organizations have emerged that champion the student acquisition of new competencies
for the 21st century. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, P21, was founded in 2002 and has
brought together business champions like Google, Intel, and Disney to integrate with government
and educators to foster innovative skills (critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and
creativity), information, and media and technology skills, as well as modern assessment
practices. Canadians for 21st Century Learning and Innovation (C21) is an organization designed
to help school and district leaders understand how to lead organizations that provide for the
acquisition of 21st-century competencies.
In their overview of 21st-century skills, Ledward and Hirata (2011) proposed four major
findings in the literature:
1. The expansion of information and communication technology is transforming
learning. Learners are in a world that is fundamentally different than before.
2. Twenty-first-century skills establish new learner standards by integrating core subject
mastery with interdisciplinary themes (e.g., civics, environmental literacy, global
awareness).
27
3. With the learning environment and teacher competency as primary factors, skill
development can be achieved in many wa ys.
4. Although new to the literature, existing evidence links 21st-century skills with
positive learner outcomes and higher student engagement. (p. 3)
Government is the essential third partner critical to systemic reform through the
development of policy and vision in tri-level reform, between the school–community, district,
and government (Fullan, 2006). The Alberta government has responded to that call, representing
Fullan’s (2013) concept of leadership from the centre, which he describes as the clarity,
alignment, and focus of governments responsible for education in jurisdictions around the world.
Most often, dissonance and implementation gaps start with government authorities because the
vision is usually one of compliance or accountability for results and finances, not a progressive
view of whole-system change. Commencing in 2008, Alberta Education launched its Dialogue
with Albertans, focused on developing a bold and innovative vision for education by consulting
with many Albertans. After 12 months of collaborative meetings and focus groups, a steering
committee synthesized the views and contributions from face-to-face consultations with over
4,000 people, and an additional 11,000 online submissions (Alberta Education, 2010). The result,
launched early in 2010, was Inspiring Education, a comprehensive document setting a 20-year
vision for education in the province and calling for fundamental shifts to governance,
curriculum, assessment, leadership, finance, professional development, teaching practice, and
learner engagement, all for the purpose of meeting the needs of a new learner in a rapidly
changing world. Preparing youth for their future, not adults’ past, as a fundamental tenet of the
vision, was followed by Inspiring Action (Alberta Education, 2011b) which served both as a
28
summary of the larger vision and a call to action in the aforementioned areas of the education
system.
McCoog (2008) has suggested replacing the traditional “3 Rs” of reading, writing, and
arithmetic with rigor, relevance, and real-world skills. He suggested that today’s learners, having
grown up digital (Tapscott, 2008), demand an engaging student experience that harnesses their
skills at networking and collaboration. In order to foster learning conditions that develop 21st-
century skills, all stakeholders must become learners. This in turn requires significant
organizational change. This research examined the effectiveness of change efforts to respond to
that call.
Critique of 21st-Century Learning
Support for 21st-century learning as a construct and the shift toward embracing
constructivism is varied. Three categories of critique are common. First, some organizations,
such as the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA; 2011a) have suggested that “basics” must not
be sacrificed for what may be perceived as blind faith in contemporary digital tools. The ATA
has consistently raised concerns about equity of access to digital tools, the lack of focus by
students in possession of such tools, and the complexity for educators to meaningfully facilitate
learning in a digital environment. Moreover, this critique summarizes a very common criticism
that 21st-century learning is simply the embedded use of digital devices inside and outside of
classrooms.
Second, some have argued that the 21st-century transformation fad is a guise for
generating significant private sector profits for companies invested in the work. Technology and
publishing companies, predominantly, are often cited as wielding influence and shaping the
discourse in support of 21st-century learning. Companies like Pearson, a transnational publisher,
29
has representatives who sit on nonprofit boards such as P21 and works closely with state and
provincial education departments. The argument is that such companies are driving this agenda
for selfish reasons. This is a particularly difficult critique to find cited in research, but it appears
frequently in newspaper chains, most recently b y editorial writers in the Washington Post in the
U.S. and by Postmedia in Canada (Edmonton Journal, February, 2014). Although not a research-
driven critique, it has a folksy appeal to many who believe that government conspiracies and
failed reform efforts are now even more offensive with the introduction of private-sector
collusion.
Finally, some researchers have argued that the 21st-century “orthodox y” is nonsense
because it denies the past and threatens all that is good about educational tradition (Greene,
2011). Perhaps Greene’s greatest critique is in a uniform application of transforming schools as
he champions voucher schools in the U.S. By default, he advocates for individual school-based
innovation to improve outcomes. Yet the concept of transformational change, which this research
is based upon, elicits fear in many both within and outside the educational system, for reasons
previously stated about the importance of stability of public institutions. Bennett (2011) best
summarized this nostalgia-based critique as follows:
What’s the “21st Century Schools” movement really all about? Does blind worship of the
Internet and social media threaten our valued educational tradition based upon knowledge
from past generations? In what way does swallowing futurism whole contribute to the
divergent thinking so prized by Sir Ken Robinson and his disciples?” (p. 1)
In summar y, the case against 21st-century learning falls typically within the three
aforementioned categories. It is also t ypically outside of research and more an unsubstantiated
critique by bloggers, newspaper columnists, and anti-government advocates (guised as
30
decentralized decision-makers). Summarizing research-backed critiques of attempts to modernize
education is therefore challenging. Even the large-scale assessment advocates that point to
international tests like PISA very quickly fall short of a coherent argument because an y declines
by a jurisdiction on international test results blamed on 21st-century learning would mean that
education systems have transformed already. If that is the case, then this research is redundant.
School districts and provincial/state jurisdictions, at best, are just getting started. Perhaps a
decline on international testing supports the reciprocal argument: that schools must change in 2015 and beyond to make learning relevant to students in relation to the world they are growing
up in, not the one we as adults did.
Transformational Change
A strong bod y of research supports the view that transformational change is the only wa y
in which education systems can be successful with this most recent effort to meet the needs of
21st-century learners. Although transformational change is a daunting term to many, incremental
change has characterized previous reform efforts and has resulted in education systems largel y
the same as before. An understanding has emerged about reform that it must be systemic and
must challenge existential views of the system. Transforming into learning organizations that
perpetually build capacity is supported in the literature as the means of changing the status quo
(Senge, 1990; Wenger, 2000). “We are now confronted with the fact that we are certain to
encounter enormous human and economic costs if we fail to prepare children in a manner that
fits the world they will inherit as adults” (Rohlen, 1999, p. 23).
Recent literature in educational leadership has focused on transformational change. This
phenomenon in an education context is best explained in relation to fundamentally changing a
traditional education system with which all societal members have some experience. The
31
characteristics that emerge are a compelling, future-focused vision for the organization;
alignment of the vision from bottom to top and top to bottom; a collaborative approach within a
high trust environment of working together, not competing; and structures to build individual
capacity coupled with the expectation all will commit (Leithwood, Harris, & Strauss, 2010).
Hargreaves and Shirle y (2009), Argyris and Schön (1978), Waters and Marzano (2006),
and Fullan (2006) have all described the essential conditions for transformational change to
occur in educational organizations, and whole system change into a learning organization was
first proposed by Senge (1990). Waters and Marzano focused on district and school leadership
alignment and positive correlations with specific characteristics and actions of leaders. Fullan
(2006) described the blend between a bottom-up and top-down approach, which deconstructs the
belief in highly decentralized, school-based decision-making in isolation of districts and
governments driven by the market forces of competition for students. This concept is supported
by Dufour (2007) and Darling-Hammond (2009). Collectively, the y have argued for a strong and
collaboratively built system vision for the preferred future, with concentrated centralized support
to schools to realize the vision within their own unique contexts. And last, Argyris and Schön
(1978) described the essential tension between espoused theories and theories of action, and
postulated that transformation effort must attend to theories of action and the seminal work on
change of the second order. If teacher practice does not change in the learning environment,
transformation will not occur systemically.
Transformational change is change of the second order (Waters & Marzano, 2006). In
contrast to first-order change characterized by tweaks in the system (e.g., phonics, whole
language) with no long-term impact, second-order change is the fundamental shift of the status
quo. Change of the first order is characterized as an extension of the past, is within existing
32
paradigms, is consistent with prevailing norms and values, and is implemented with existing
knowledge and skills. In contrast, change of the second order is characterized by a break from
the past, is outside of existing paradigms, is in conflict with prevailing norms and values, and
requires new knowledge and skills to implement. Second order change therefore impacts all
facets of an organization, most powerfully enacted when aligned to a consistent organizational
vision, so that all functions are altered toward the desired new end (Waters & Marzano, 2006, p.
18).
Argyris and Schön (1974) first conceptualized action theories and the differentiation
between what they called espoused theories of action and theories of use. They proposed that
people in organizations most often think they are acting upon their theory of action, but
commonly the theory in use is what governs actions. In other words, organizations often fail to
transform because the narrative and actual practice are not aligned, and at best first-order change
results. Argyris and Schön (1978) further explained that when individuals within organizations
operationalize rather than question existing practices, plans, policies, and strategies, single-loop
learning is present. To foster change of the second order, double-loop learning is required,
characterized by scrutinizing the governing variables, which leads to a shift in strategy and
consequences. In turn, this requires continual learning, organizational trust, and open
communication and collaboration (Argyris & Schön, 1978, pp. 2–3). This is the seminal work in
the area of different degrees of change within organizations. Senge (1990) proposed that the deep
set of organizational beliefs—the story—is fundamentally different from the hierarchal,
structural worldview of the organization. Organizational assumptions and beliefs must change to
unlock individuals’ potential to build new knowledge and capabilities and therefore truly change
33
in practice. In short, Senge proposed that people do not resist change; they resist being changed (1990, p. 124).
If educational leaders apply transformational change to education systems to become
21st-century learning organizations, the core practices of teaching and learning are significantly
altered, and the support systems of technology, human resources, infrastructure, governance,
coaching, mentoring, leadership, curriculum, assessment, instruction time, school and district
funding, and parental engagement all change in order to provide real support to shifting
classroom practices. Significant structural and human investment into building teacher capacity
to function as facilitators of 21st-century competencies are needed. Transformed organizations of
any t ype have at their core structural learning opportunities for all members, coupled with high
levels of trust enabling all to engage in their own way. Transformational change is not tweaking
or adjusting systems but changing the status quo. Such change, especially within public sector
organizations that are foundational to society such as education, has been largel y unsuccessful
time and time again (Levin, 2010). To change schools is to change the very culture they are built
on—the habits, the values, the images, and the expectations of schooling. Change efforts focus
on personnel skills, which are easy to change if sufficient reason is given, but attitudes and
modes of operation are the barriers to change.
The most lethal enemy of change is satisfaction with the status quo, one that implies that
what worked to generate the truly magnificent achievements of the 20th century will be good
enough for the 21st. Why change our institutional designs and assumptions about learning? This
is a reasonable question if the 21st century is shaped by the same demands on companies,
communities, and nations as was the 20th. If the world were static, this argument would have
great merit (Rohlen, 1999). Rohlen suggested that the idiosyncratic and dichotomous debate
34
about changing schooling is a guise for a truly nostalgic view of the past. While the debate
continues about what needs to change and how to realize it, and religious dogma underpins the
potential to be progressive, the core argument of changing the experience and outputs of
schooling is lost, and the economic, environmental, and social costs will continue to accumulate
(Rohlen, 1999, pp. 142–149).
S ystemic transformation attempts to transform education in Wales suggest that such
change can be achieved only if the leadership capacity is established and maintained throughout
the major functions of the organization (Harris, 2010). Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) proposed a
fourth way of transforming educational organizations through the development of sustained and
distributed leadership, driving from the bottom up and steering from the top, putting
responsibility before accountability, and fostering quality teachers. The y argued that change in
practice is not realized until teachers have actualized it within classrooms, and the triangulation
of professionalism, purpose, and coherence establishes the condition for sticky and sustained
change. Transformational change is a significant endeavour that requires several critical
characteristics to converge. Transforming into a 21st-century learning organization, in response
to the failure of true educational change, is therefore a unique and difficult pursuit.
District Leadership
School jurisdictions have both a governance team made up of locally elected trustees and
an operational team made up of the superintendent of schools and other senior administrators.
The governance team is responsible for determining polic y and overall direction while the
superintendent and senior leaders determine how to carry out that direction. In other words, the
board determines what is to be done and the administrators determine how it will be done.
35
Senior school system leaders are often former teachers and principals from within the
same system or other similar systems from around the world. Some systems, such as San Diego
Public Schools, Los Angeles Unified District, New York Public Schools, and Chicago Public
Schools, have hired professionals from other careers to be superintendents (ECRA Group, 2010).
This appears problematic given that educational change researchers urge for a focus on
instructional leadership from superintendents. A former military general may struggle with
understanding and then leading the highl y technical nuances of high quality classroom
instruction without ever having been a classroom teacher, when having been an excellent
classroom teacher should be a prerequisite. To further illustrate the point, I wonder how many
superintendents would be welcomed, upon retirement from education, to be generals in the
military?
Superintendents are responsible for all operations of the school district, from budgeting
and strategic planning to hiring and evaluating staff to being accountable for student
performance. The superintendent role is highly political with an often “dual mastery” concept:
accountable to the regulatory bod y (e.g., provincial minister, state governor, municipal mayor)
and to the local Board of Trustees. Cuban (1998) stated, “Conflict is the DNA of the
superintendency. The superintendent must create coherent actions from numerous and sometimes
incongruent goals” (p. 1). The superintendent is responsible as well for the district leadership
team. Many different configurations exist within these leadership teams, but their purpose is
clear: to assist the superintendent with district leadership functions and politically derived
direction. Unlike a school, however, where the role of principals is to consolidate the actions and
spirit of colleague educators while looking into the eyes of students, district leaders must pull
together educators and noneducators alike, many with a cumulative experience in classrooms
36
reflective of the years they themselves spent in school. Adding to this complexity is the
independent and multifaceted central functions of districts. Rallying transportation or finance
staff around a compelling instructional vision of the district is challenging, as their daily
experience within their roles is far removed from children in classrooms. This is an often-
unearthed challenge of district leadership teams, and ultimately of the superintendent.
District leaders must also structure central functions, such as transportation, finance,
disability management, and facility management and planning, attentive to the gap that is in
place between students in classrooms and the role leaders must fulfill. This structural deficit
presents significant challenges to answering the primary question of whether district leadership
really matters. In large or geographically dispersed districts, the gap between district
instructional strategies and student learning in classrooms can be significant. Change efforts
often fail because of this gap and incremental adjustments are the result. Until district leaders
impact the change in practice of classroom teachers, their role is reduced, which is often the case,
to system managers. Site-based decision-making (SBDM) and the corresponding localized
operations management coupled with political and district challenges make the goal of system
directed instructional leadership a daunting task. From a practical perspective, this presents at
least a partial explanation as to why literature reviews into district leadership quickly devolve
into the role of the school principal and school leadership. This emerging field of research is now
prescribing specific actions and characteristics that position district leaders as transformative and
maintain that their efforts do make a difference.
Calls for the transformation of the education system began for a third time (following the
early 1960s and early 1980s reform efforts) in the mid-1990s (Rohlen, 1999). Singapore, b y
example, created a vision for education in the 21st century in 1999 with its Programme for
37
Rebuilding and Improving Existing Schools (PRIME; Singapore Education, 1999). The report
calls for introducing critical and creative thinking, curriculum redesign, and bottom-up
innovation. This call for a shift to constructivist learning environments was articulated as an
effort to shift from an era of modernization (industrialization) to an era of globalization. As
expressed earlier, both internal and external conflict with this change will follow with teachers,
principals, superintendents, and trustees and equally b y parents and communities respectively.
One possible explanation for this delay, other than nostalgia and the experience of being a
student, is the consistent resistance by teachers’ unions. This resistance manifests largely in
regard to working conditions: union leaders continue to fight to maintain current workloads, and
systemic change will only add to it (ATA, 2011a). This in turn symbolizes the complexity of
change in education because this argument is based upon change as incremental and not a shift,
which also means eliminating certain traditional practices. Ironicall y, student disengagement in
classrooms, a by-product of stand-and-deliver pedagogy, adds to teacher stress, workload, and
ultimately attrition. Student disengagement often leads to classroom management challenges for
teachers and is highly correlated to burnout (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Intellectual
engagement, a term used to describe a student so focused that time disappears (Willms, Friesen,
& Milton, 2009), will logically keep students on task and learning, not off task and potentially a
classroom management issue. In turn, this must have a positive impact on teachers’ working
conditions.
Another possible explanation for lack of transformational change comes from the
example of U. S. Secretary of Education William Bennett’s (1987) characterization of the
superintendent, board members, and central office staff as “the blob,” which he argued is made
38
of people who work outside of classrooms, resist reform efforts, and consume resources. In 1999,
Bennett, Finn, and Cribb stated:
The public school establishment is one of the most stubbornly intransigent forces on the
planet. It is full of people and organizations dedicated to protecting established programs
and keeping things just the way the y are. Administrators talk of reform even as they are
circling the wagons to fend off change, or preparing to outflank your innovation. . . . To
understand many of the problems besetting U.S. schools, it is necessary to know
something about the education establishment christened the “blob.” (p. 628)
Large-scale reform efforts of the 1980s and 1990s did not include discussion about
district leaders as an intentional and critical group for success. Perhaps Bennett’s (1987) beliefs
in the blob were widespread across the educational field, or perhaps as a leader in education his
influence on the field has been underestimated. Nevertheless, over the last decade there has been
a shift to include district leaders in another round of large-scale reform to be successful (Fullan,
2001; Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Positive effects of district leadership. As with school principals and leaders at the
school level, effective district leadership positively impacts student learning (Portis & Garcia,
2007; Waters & Marzano, 2006). The ultimate test for this impact, however, narrows to
achievement on test scores within a district. Surveys of students, parents, staff, and community
members can also be used to determine the level of satisfaction with the system. However, data
collection and informed decision-making can occur in areas such as student engagement, staff
graduation rates, outcomes for low socioeconomic students, and grade level of achievement for
each student in each subject discipline. And finally, districts may also collect anecdotal evidence
39
of successes or challenges, captured through storytelling and narratives, to assess a district’s
strength with respect to student learning. In summary, concluding positive or negative
correlations of district leadership is dependent upon the type, breadth, and depth of the data
collected. This study focused primarily on large-scale assessment data, as this is a constant
within the literature to compare findings.
Superintendents and their support teams, with a strong understanding of the
organizational culture, can have a significant impact on district performance. Superintendents
personify the aspirations and responsibilities of the entire organization (DiPaola & Stronge,
2003). From its earliest iteration, the superintendency was almost exclusively defined b y the
leader’s ability to manage fiscal, physical, and personnel resources. That has been shifting to
expect a superintendent who has vision, collaborates, is creative, is an instructional leader,
communicates strongly, and demonstrates political acumen (Glass, 2001).
All organizations—public and private, and large and small—require centrally coordinated
functions to operate. The small business with 15 employees must coordinate payroll, training,
recruitment, employment, and budgeting processes. Arguabl y, the most critical function is the
purpose or core mission of the organization that must be developed and nurtured for the business
to remain viable. Collins (2001) referred to level five leaders who build enduring greatness
through a paradoxical humility and strong will (p. 20). School districts require these same
structures, with the exception of a sales team, and its overall success in achieving its goals can be
reduced simply to leadership. From this perspective, district leadership in education systems can
and should have an impact on student learning.
Characteristics of effective district leadership. Three cycles of effective schools
research have occurred. The first, from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s, produced the first set of
40
effective schools correlations that when present in the culture led to higher achievement scores
than predicted, regardless of social factors and what students were attending. The second phase
was from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s and resulted in researchers being able to more
explicitly describe effective practices and compute the effect and strength of the relationship.
The current, emerging phase, translates well-defined and effective school, classroom, and
leadership practices into specific actions and behaviours.
Six characteristics of school district leaders positively impact student achievement:
1. Collaborative goal-setting: Effective district leaders include a broad-based and
representative stakeholder group to collaborate on the design, and therefore
collectively own, the strategic plan for the district.
2. Non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction: Effective district leaders
ensure goals for student achievement and classroom instruction are clear, and all staff
are expected to work toward them.
3. Board alignment with and support of district goals: Effective district leaders strive to
ensure their corporate boards are aligned with, and individual trustees support, the
non-negotiable goals of achievement and instruction.
4. Monitoring of achievement and instruction goals: Effective district leaders
continually monitor progress toward goals and hold staff accountable for their
achievement.
5. Resources in support of achievement and instruction goals: Effective district leaders
target monies to drive professional learning and support the instructional model.
6. Defined autonomy: Effective district leaders understand the critical blend between
strong and non-negotiable central goals and use of resources but provide for local
41
decision-making on how to achieve those goals. (Waters & Marzano, 2006, pp. 15–
16)
These six characteristics of district leaders, correlated to higher student achievement,
foster a causal relationship between practice and outcomes. Four general findings of Waters and
Marzano’s (2006) research are as follows:
1. District-level leadership matters: A statistically significant relationship (+0.24) has
been measured between district leadership and student achievement.
2. Effective superintendents focus on goal orientation: The district-level leadership
responsibilities outlined above, all related to keeping districts focused on teaching and
learning goals, were found to have a statistically significant correlation (+0.19) with
student achievement.
3. Superintendent tenure: The length of superintendent tenure was positively correlated
to student achievement (+0.19).
4. Defined autonomy: Eradicating the 1980s myth of decentralizing resources and
fostering competition between schools (SBDM), a positive correlation (+0.28) was
found between clear district goals blended with school-based decision-making on
how to achieve them. (pp. 4–6)
Although Waters and Marzano’s (2006) study is without its parallel in current research,
strong principals have demonstrated similar characteristics, with the possible exception of board
alignment and the addition of high relational trust, for the past two decades (Fink, 2005; Fullan,
2001). A supplemental question therefore is how district level leaders can demonstrate aligned
characteristics to what the literature has revealed about high-performing principals. Perhaps the
42
answer lies within the structural and political variances of the superintendency and Ministers of Education.
There needs to be a skillful blend between bottom-up action and ownership combined
with top-down visioning and accountability structures (Fullan, 2006; Waters & Marzano, 2006),
similarly stated as the notion of bottom-up action while steering at the top (Darling-Hammond,
2009; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009). Leaders must provide subtle directional corrections, much
like the rudder of a ship, to keep the bearing on the desired end state.
Transformative educational leadership requires the six dimensions of vision building,
individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, acceptance of group goals, high
performance expectations, and modelling of important values and practices by leaders (Sleegers,
Geijsel, & Van Den Berg, 2002). A common theme throughout the literature was that leadership
at the district level has an impact on learning in classrooms, through school principals and the
teachers themselves. Research has focused on the capacities of the school principal and the
classroom teacher to create both classroom and school learning environments that are
exceptional. Leadership at the district level must focus on fostering that individual excellence to
become system excellence. District leadership can therefore foster transformational change in a
district, which is in response to transforming into a 21st-century learning organization, which in
turn is in response to modernizing an education system grounded in the late 19th century.
Notwithstanding, the type of change described here within education systems is a difficult task.
Many structural barriers impede second order change. The literature is virtually silent in the area
of evidence of successful school district transformation. The catalyst for change in this research,
the strategic plan, is one of the characteristics of district leadership found to have significant
impact.
43
Leithwood (2008), Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999), and Leithwood et al. (2010)
have written extensively on the topic of effective district leadership within the context of
emerging research on the topic. His view has shifted slightly from managing the political to
focusing on s ystem-level leadership that impacts student achievement while accepting the
political nature and dyadic relationship with the corporate board. In his 2008 work, Leithwood
identified a sample of high performing districts in the United States and found their
superintendents worked toward identifying the characteristics of effective district leadership. His
study found the following conditions present within the high-performing districts:
1. Identifying and articulating a vision: Effective district leaders foster a compelling
vision and inspire staff to pursue its pathway.
2. Modelling: Effective district leaders model the types of behaviours they wish to see
across the system. Standing in the hallways between classes on school visits, for
example, models the importance of a caring school climate.
3. Fostering acceptance of group goals: Effective district leaders build and support
structures for the distribution and acceptance of goals within the district.
4. High performance expectations: Effective district leaders expect high performance of
staff and establish and support accountability mechanisms for that performance.
5. Individualized support: Effective district leaders understand that staff and school
communities are at different places on the learning continuum and need targeted and
specific supports to continue their growth.
6. Intellectual stimulation: Effective district leaders continuously challenge leaders and
staff to engage in intellectually stimulating activities and conversations about their
practice. (Leithwood, 2008, p. 18)
44
In another study, Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) concluded that
leadership plays a significant and often underestimated role in student learning. Leadership
accounts for 25% of the total direct and indirect effects on student learning, second only to
classroom instruction, and most critical in underperforming districts. They articulated three sets
of practices, inclusive of both district and school leaders, that positively affect student learning:
1. Setting direction: Effective district and school leaders develop a shared vision that
frames the work and goals, use the goals to motivate people and make sense of their
purpose, monitor their performance, and communicate effectively.
2. Develop people: Effective district and school leaders intellectually stimulate people,
support their individual needs, and provide examples of best practices consistent with
high-performing organizations.
3. Redesign the organization: Effective district and school leaders restructure to support
and drive the performance of the organization and build collaborative processes to
harness collective capacities. (Leithwood et al., 2004, pp. 8–9)
Leadership at all levels is the key to the successful implementation of the large-scale
reform efforts occurring globally within many jurisdictions early in the 21st century.
ECRA Group (Education, Consulting, Research, Analytics) produced an effective
superintendents literature review in 2010 for the purpose of recruiting individuals to district
leadership positions. Its review proposed that the superintendency is far more than the
dichotomous leader vs. manager and must account for the network of relationships, interactions,
and protocols critical for success. Superintendents who demonstrate initiative and vision through
involving stakeholders and fostering of teamwork create organizational alignment (Goens, 2009;
45
Phillips & Phillips, 2007). The summary findings of ECRA Group on effective superintendent
characteristics are as follows:
1. Vision and values: Effective superintendents have a strong vision for the organization
and commitment to excellence, ensure an alignment between district programs and
that vision, and promote and uphold high expectations including their own behaviour.
2. Core knowledge competencies: Effective superintendents are competent in all of the
various areas of expertise needed on a daily basis, including instructional, managerial,
legal, financial, and personnel functions.
3. Instructional leadership: Effective superintendents demonstrate their ability to plan,
implement, and evaluate the efficacy of the district’s instructional and assessment
program as well as use research and data to inform practice.
4. Community and relationships: Effective superintendents facilitate the meaningful
involvement of stakeholders, specifically the staff and trustees, in realizing the district
vision to improve student achievement.
5. Communication and collaboration: Effective superintendents fulfill the voice function
of the district both in relation to communicating district performance to all
stakeholder groupings and providing feedback to those with whom they collaborate.
6. Management : Effective superintendents are able to align system operation functions
such as budgeting to organizational performance and the district vision. (ECRA
Group, 2010, p. 5)
ECRA Group (2010) described the perspectives of many leading researchers in the field
of educational leadership to accumulate a rich description of characteristics for recruiting
superintendents. Although not a traditional reference source on the topic, ECRA Group’s
46
research is relevant at least from the view of what a leading educational search firm uses as a
template to acquire superintendents on behalf of school boards across North America.
Elmore, Fullan, and Schlechty’s (2006) research was aimed at helping urban school
systems develop and implement a management model to drive system improvement. In 2003, the
Harvard Business School and Harvard Graduate School of Education launched the Public
Education Leadership Project (PELP), made up of 12 faculty members (Harvard PELP, 2004).
The team’s goal was to identify effective leadership and management practices within both the
private and public sectors. Although early in the longitudinal study, Elmore et al. reported some
preliminary findings:
1. Strategy for teaching and learning: Effective district leaders develop and articulate a
comprehensive strategy to build teacher capacity and communicate the vision of
optimal learning conditions for students.
2. A performance culture: Effective district leaders clarify roles, establish high
performance expectations, and hold staff accountable for meeting or exceeding
expectations. The pathway is to establish a culture of collaboration, high expectations,
and accountability.
3. S ystems and structures: Effective district leaders asses current structures and build
new ones focusing on what is best to support learners in classrooms. Reporting
relationships, resource allocation, and training and mentoring programs are all
examples of what may be restructured.
4. Resources: Effective district leaders ensure that all resources—financial, human,
technological, and data—are used wisely and in support of the mission and vision of
the district.
47
5. Stakeholders: Effective district leaders engage and collaborate with all stakeholder
groups to build a sense of collective ownership and present a unified front in what
otherwise can be a very discrepant and often political decision-making context.
6. Environment: Effective district leaders understand the complexity of the environment
they work in and leverage external interest to champion their work. Philanthropists,
for example, cannot donate to a project that is inconsistent with the vision of the
district. Commitment to vision can be more clearly demonstrated by refusing to
introduce new initiatives at a time of significant systemic change. (Elmore et al.,
2006, p. 5)
In addition to Harvard PELP’s (2004) findings, Elmore et al. (2006) suggested that the
district office has a critical role in developing strategies, building capacit y within staff,
monitoring student achievement, and holding people accountable. They argued that defining
district leaders as part of the problem with large-scale reform is a significant mistake.
Portis and Garcia (2007) conducted interviews with superintendents and leaders of
education reform organizations to unearth the characteristics of successful district leaders as
change agents. The y asserted that these leaders are successful at overcoming resistance to change
and modifying the district culture, focusing on eight functions:
1. Articulating a vision: This describes how effective district leaders lead their change
efforts with a clear, deliberate articulation of the vision and goals of reform and work
tirelessly to establish a district culture committed to results, continuous learning, and
ownership.
2. Setting realistic expectations: Effective district leaders understand that true reform
takes significant time to accomplish. Support for the culture, while holding it to high
48
performance standards and non-negotiable expectations of improvement, must be
coupled with patience and realistic timeframes to accomplish systemic changes.
3. Engaging their board and empowering politicians: Effective district leaders build
community relationships and leverage greater stakeholder support, as well as
collaborate on building the district vision to establish a collective ownership context.
4. Involving their unions: Leaders not only foster productive relationships but involve
unions in the reform process to demonstrate a united front with respect to student
achievement. Union leaders on behalf of teachers, for example, easily support a
strong professional learning structure, yet it is also a critical investment by the
superintendent into improving student learning in classrooms.
5. Thinking s ystematically: Effective district leaders understand that just as the earlier
trend of decentralization has caused schools to operate in isolation, the reverse is also
true. By thinking of the system, district leaders structure and centralize critical
supports to reform the district.
6. Focusing on instruction: District leaders emphasize the importance of honing a clear
and collective vision of skillful instruction and sustain a laser-like focus on the
quality of teaching and the climate in which rigorous learning takes place.
7. Using data: Leaders to understand that statistical information is integral to district
reform, and that data must be accessible and meaningful to principals, teachers, and
board members.
8. Shifting the reality: Effective district leaders understand that demonstrating what the
new reality looks like can be as powerful as data, and with the critical addition to data
49
provide what stakeholders need to understand reform efforts. (Portis & Garcia, 2007,
p. 21)
Ultimately, Portis and Garcia positioned superintendents as school district change leaders
if they demonstrate specific characteristics and actions.
Dufour (2007) cited the Harvard PELP findings that suggest that high-performing
districts have coherent strategies for improvement that hold staff accountable for student
learning. Dufour suggested that there is significant evidence from Elmore et al. (2006) indicating
that leaving the issue of school improvement to each school does not result in more effective
schools. He contended that the bottom-up approach to school improvement does not work.
District leaders must create a clear and coherent vision, preferably with multiple stakeholders as
coconstructors, and communicate, support through resource deployment, and hold all
accountable to that vision. High performing districts in the U.S. all had district leaders who
fulfilled those actions (Dufour, 2007).
In summar y, district level leadership matters. Several researchers and organizations have
identified specific characteristics that positively impact student learning outcomes in the
complex organization of a school district (see Table 1).
Table 1
Effective District Leadership Characteristics According to Various Researchers
Characteristic
Waters & Marzano,
2006
Fullan, 2006
Leithwood,
2008
Leithwood et al., 1999
ECRA Group, 2010
Elmore,
2003
Portis & Garcia, 2007
Dufour,
2007
Vision
Accountability
Collaboration
Instructional leadership
50
Communication
Defined autonomy
Resource management
Political acumen
Organizational structure
System thinking
District leaders who successfully change systems have vision and establish a clear
direction for the organization. They have non-negotiable goals and hold staff accountable for
achieving them. Effective district leaders develop people and collaborate with partner
organizations and communities. Finally, the y communicate effectively. These characteristics, as
articulated by leading researchers in the field, are of district leaders who improve performance.
These same characteristics would likely enable district leaders to lead system transformation.
Collaboration and trust. Leading change is a difficult process under average
circumstances and infinitely more difficult in education systems particularly directed at change
of the second order (Hargreaves & Shirle y, 2009; Waters & Marzano, 2006). Teachers as leaders
of students, principals as leaders of teachers, and superintendents as leaders of principals all must
embrace new modes of operating. Understanding and directing second-order change, when it
actually is underwa y, is neither possible nor desirable. Empowering and enabling others to lead,
within the parameters of a corporate vision, is the only wa y to lead significant change in
organizations. Anything less is tweaking the system, what Waters and Marzano (2006) called
first-order change, and what characterizes 98% of all change efforts.
51
Leaders must be comfortable empowering others to build capacities that far exceed their
own (Gronn, 2002; Louis, 2006). Gronn drew upon the concept of distributed leadership, which
originated in social psychology in the early 1950s, as a method for contemporary leadership
function early in the 21st century. Authoritarian leaders who control all functions stifle human
capacity at a time when team members must collaborate and learn together. Collaborative leaders
build structures that nurture the organization and bring man y voices to the table (Spillane, 2005).
Modelled after the work of constructivist teachers, leaders must facilitate new knowledge
creation through networks and collaboration, building that knowledge by s ynthesizing old
constructs with emerging understanding and practice in new contexts.
These leaders, in an educational context, also foster a climate of trust by investing in
relationships, encouraging staff to take risks in the best interest of student learning (Br yk &
Schnieder, 2002; Fullan, 2003). Fairholm (1994) defined trust as the reliance on the integrity or
authenticity of other people. Innovations are embraced as value-added processes to adopt.
Creativity becomes the by-product of a trusting culture coupled with collaborative and
innovative practice. An environment of mutual trust based upon shared vision, ideals, and values
in the culture of an organization makes leadership possible. Collaborative structures build
organizational and relational trust, essential to changing normal operations (Cosner, 2009).
Establishing an organizational culture grounded upon trust exacerbates individuals’ potential to
build capacity as leaders (Fairholm, 1994).
Interpersonal trust is defined as a person’s willingness to depend upon another person
with a feeling of relative security despite possible negative consequences (McKnight,
Cummings, & Chervan y, 1995). Interpersonal trust is dependent upon a relationship with another
person and is situational. It is an intentional state where one person is willing or preparing to be
52
dependent on another person. Interpersonal trust has both affective and cognitive dimensions. It
is cognitive-based in that people choose who they will trust, in which respects and under what
circumstances, and make the choice based on what they consider to be good reasons and
therefore evidence of trustworthiness (Lewis & Wiegert, 1985). Affectively, trust is also
grounded in the emotional bonds between two people. People who make emotional investments
in relationships typically show genuine care and concern for others, believe in the intrinsic virtue
of these relationships, and believe that sentiments are, or should be, reciprocated (Pennings&
Woiceshyn, 1987).
The primary task of leadership is to create a culture in which others choose to follow. The
foundation for this success is trust. Mutually beneficial goals, as with superintendents and board
members in regard to student learning opportunities, can be successfully achieved only through
high-trust working relationships. A dysfunctional culture builds mistrust rather than trust, and
works against teambuilding (Fairholm, 1994). Despite this, there is limited research literature on
developing trust relationships that are critical for the success of any leader. There is even less
literature on the development and maintenance of a trust culture.
When a leader’s actions and behaviour are predictable, trust is built. Cooperative leaders
build trust but must be congruent in their actions and words (Bennis & Nanus, 1985).
Developing trust between the superintendent and board members can be challenging,
compounded by the difficult roles and responsibilities of the positions. According to Zand
(1972), high-trust relationships stimulate higher performance. In terms of building trust, Britton
and Stallings (1986) noted four strategies. First, individuals must make a commitment to people.
Second, trust must be rewarded and distrust penalized. Third, leaders must not abuse their power.
Last, cooperation and independence must be mutually developed and interchangeable.
53
District leaders must create a culture other organizational stakeholders want to follow,
based upon a rationale for change that makes sense to educators (Levin, 2008). Darling-
Hammond, Lapointe, and Meyerson (2007) focused on school leadership development and
concluded that school leadership in a high trust environment is the catalyst for deep and
embedded change in classrooms. Districts, in their selection and development of future and
current principals, play a significant role in this achievement.
Critique of district leadership. Despite the increased focus and interest of leading
educational researchers in the field of district leadership, there remains a strong critique of its
effectiveness. From consuming resources and blocking change efforts to insisting on top-down
reform, the field has a strong representation of researchers who have suggested district leaders
best serve students as managers of resources and blockers of political interference so that those at
the grassroots level can make a difference in student learning. Ironicall y, the shift to focusing on
district leadership is at least in part attributable to failed reform efforts for many decades. Levin
(2010) stated, “The changes intended to improve education outcomes have simply not delivered
therefore leaving the basic features of schooling unaltered” (p. 64). Results have not measurably
and consistently improved at the school level, which places the school, from the perspective of
community members, taxpayers, and researchers, at the centre of the change effort. As a
consequence, reform programs, improvement initiatives, and interventions have been
preoccupied with school-level change (Harris & Chrispeels, 2008). Therefore, research to school
improvement now includes the critical function of district leadership as part of the solution, but
belief in the blob still permeates the thinking of teachers, unions, parents, community members,
and even trustees themselves.
54
This critique over the last two decades has been bolstered within reform efforts. As
increased accountability mechanisms have been put in place, the perception is that central leaders
are trying to control a highly devolved education system. This top-down approach results in a
growing gap between management and school staff (Whitty, 2002). Further, there is evidence
that the state and central administration is more interested in the public relations exercise and
shifting of blame rather than genuine educational outcomes (Mulford, 2010). Lawton (1995)
argued that bloated educational structures have self-serving interests only to maintain
themselves, not serve the public. He went on to state that he knows of no student who has ever
attended a central office reunion.
S ystem-wide improvement requires large-scale reform and collective capacity building,
not simply individual school innovation, and requires changes at all levels of the system (Harris,
2010; Reeves, 2010). In the 1990s, for example, another attempt at large-scale reform was made
with a greater appreciation for its complexity and sense of urgenc y (Fullan, 2001). These reform
efforts failed yet again because of an absence of change knowledge (Fullan, 2009a), which is a
lack of understanding of the change process and the key drivers of successful change in practice.
Perhaps the greatest deficiency is the lack of capacity building at all levels of the system, which
ultimately will lead to change in behaviours and actions, which in turn is the way to arrive at
different results.
Although this critique of research into effective district leadership practice is brief, a
glaring paradox emerges. On this view, district leaders are too far away from the classroom,
consuming time and resources from true change agents in schools, and increased accountability
structures drive top-down directives that only exacerbate this role (Zhao, 2009). However, large-
scale reform requires all levels of the education system to build capacity and change behaviour.
55
Therefore, district leadership practice does matter, and the task of identifying the characteristics
of effective central leadership practice is critical to large-scale reform efforts. Clearly, a
fundamentally different education system for a rapidly changing world requires government,
central office, and school staff to be collaboratively building capacit y and working toward a
common vision.
The research into effective district leadership reveals some consistent actions and
attributes that place superintendents and other central leaders in a position of leading
transformative change. In spite of 30 years of education reform efforts and literature on the topic,
only recentl y has a light been shone on the practice of the superintendent as integral to the
process. Conversely, 30 years of research has focused on the role of school principal and teacher,
yet the system remains very similar to that of the 1980s. Government authorities and central
leaders in some jurisdictions around the world working together to drive improvement initiatives
within districts is encouraging.
Critical district leadership practices. As a result of the literature review, four critical
practices (vision, accountability, collaboration, and instructional leadership) emerged of effective
district leaders, as correlated to student achievement. First, the superintendent and central staff
having a compelling vision, positioning the district in a place of strength in the future if realized,
was consistently referenced. This forward-thinking vision cannot, however, be built in isolation;
it must be built collaboratively with various stakeholder groups. A collaboratively built and
universally administered district vision empowers stakeholders to own the vision, understand the
direction, and align resources, both human and monetary, in support. Although more common
than perhaps expected, a collaboratively built vision for the district must be accompanied with
universal administration and the expectation that all will embrace it. This notion speaks to the
56
top-down, bottom-up dynamic (Fullan, 2006) and defined autonomy concept (Waters & Marzano, 2006) in direct contradiction of the criticism of central, top-down leadership initiatives (Mulford,
2010). Within this model, the direction and corresponding goals of the district are non- negotiable
but the delivery of goal actualization is determined at the local level.
Second, a commonly identified characteristic of effective district leadership practice is
having strong accountability structures in place to perpetually monitor the health and progress of
the system. Just as a strategic vision without accountability is an abdication of responsibility, so
too is allowing systemic goal congruence to be voluntary. Effective superintendents are clear
about their non-negotiable goals, grounded in student learning outcomes. Developing a strong
cadence of accountability that holds all stakeholders accountable for results not only is correlated
with higher achieving districts but also models that results are a collaborative effort (Covey,
2006). This accountability approach also demystifies the top-down improvement critique through
building a mantra that everyone is in this together.
Third, interrelated with a successful vision and accountability structure, collaborative
practice was frequently cited as a characteristic of effective district leadership (Fullan, 2013;
who built a culture grounded in collaborative practice led districts with higher student
achievement generally. If large-scale reform is dependent upon all facets of the system
understanding and aligning to a compelling vision, then collaboration provides the only natural
pathway to realize that vision. All stakeholders must become learners and create new structures,
processes, and practices together and among one another. Once again, top-down solutions will
fail. District leaders who immerse themselves in the learning process also learn alongside staff
and community and create a culture focused on improving student learning. Collaborative
57
structures for learning, bringing teachers, principals, and central leaders to the table together,
once again model goal congruence and an appreciation that people are stronger together than in
isolation. In man y respects, this practice is only modelling what students already know and how
they are working in the most progressive classrooms, schools, and districts today (Kruse &
Louis, 2009).
Last, effective district leaders model and embrace the role of instructional leaders of the
district. Long dismissed as a function of the managerial and political-laden role of the
superintendency, researchers have found that district leaders who emerge as clear communicators
and assessors of instructional design within schools and classrooms are in districts that often
have higher student achievement levels. Superintendents who can demonstrate a clear
understanding of the learning goals of the district and what the future condition of the district
looks like when the goals are realized convey a leadership praxis aligned to the core function of
school districts—learning. The often-described chasm between school leadership and teacher
practice narrows when district leaders can articulate what learning in classrooms should look
like. Alignment of purpose transcends the organization, accountability for improvement is
grounded, and collaboration is a natural means to move the district into a learning mode. Without
instructional leadership on behalf of the superintendent and other district leaders, therefore, the
full impact of other highly correlated district leadership practices to student achievement is not
realized. Without this characteristic, simply stated, credibility in fulfilling all other functions is
minimized and superintendents can slip into the authoritarian managerial role.
The four characteristics described are a culmination of the findings within the most
common research into effective district leadership practice today. District leaders as effective
communicators, community collaborators, managers of resources, navigators of the political
58
dimension, distributors of leadership, and providers of support structures for all learners were
also referenced in the literature. Of particular interest is the characteristic of top-down, bottom-
up decision-making (Fullan, 2001), or Waters and Marzano’s (2006) unanticipated finding of
defined autonomy, as positively correlated to higher student achievement. These researchers
have described leadership practice that is inconsistent with field knowledge: that a primary
function of central leadership is to set in motion a strong central vision and hold principals
accountable for results by blending local strategies to meet the system goals. Elmore (2003),
Dufour (2007), and Portis and Garcia (2007) have all described the same deliberate action as
critical to systematic reform. For the past three decades, and prevalent in education to this day, is
the belief that authority, accountability, and resources should be decentralized as much as
possible to allow school to create their own future within the system.
All of these researchers have argued for a blend between school and district autonomy in
the realization of goals (Dufour, 2007, Elmore, 2003; Fullan, 2001; Portis & Garcia, 2007;
Waters & Marzano, 2006). Leaders provide the vision and context. Within education, the
eradication of top-down strategies was grounded in a SBDM paradigm, with both financial and
operational support structures to anchor this practice. This marketization approach toward
education grounded in the 1980s, leading to SBDM and decentralization, will simply not work
for large-scale transformation of educational organizations in 2015.
Categorizations of organizational change. In 2007, McKinsey & Company released a
report entitled How the World’s Best Performing School Jurisdictions Come Out on Top, which
evaluated the common attributes of school systems. In 2010, a follow-up paper from Mourshed
et al., entitled How the World’s Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better, proposed a
59
codification system of progression toward s ystem excellence, from poor to fair, fair to good,
good to great, and great to excellent. The eight highlights of the findings are as follows:
1. A system can make significant gains from wherever it starts in 6 years or fewer;
2. There is not enough focus on the learning process in most systems studied;
3. Each stage of improvement is associated with a unique set of interventions;
4. A system’s context determines how improvement is to be done not what is to be
done;
5. Six interventions occur equally at all performance stages of improving systems
(instructional skills of teachers and leadership skills of principals, assessment of
learning, improving data systems, policy alignment, revising standards and
curriculum, and appropriate reward and remuneration structure for teachers);
6. S ystems further along the excellence journey balance school autonomy with
consistent teaching practices;
7. Leaders ignite reforms through changed circumstances; and
8. Leadership continuity is present. (Mourshed et al., 2010, pp. 99–107)
Perhaps the most interesting finding was that all improving systems, despite the context,
adopted the same set of interventions described above. Therefore, administrators seeking to
improve systems in ver y poor countries, for example, must choose culturally specific wa ys to
embark on change, but the six interventions described in item 5 above are the same.
Economically disadvantaged districts moving from poor to fair focus on instruction, data,
assessment, policy, curriculum, and compensation but have different barriers to overcome and
progress in specific areas are significantly less challenging than in others. An effective
60
compensation and reward system is extremely difficult in countries that cannot fund their public
education system adequately.
Mourshed et al. (2010) identified three common stages of progression. The first, the
performance stage, identifies the system’s current position relative to performance on student
learning outcomes. This analysis leads to a judgment of where the system sits on the continuum
from poor to excellent. The second, the intervention cluster, identifies the set of interventions
necessary to progress along the improvement continuum. Finally, the contextualization stage
describes where the system adapts to the prevailing context, including history, culture, politics,
and structure of the system and country.
In the first categor y on the continuum, poor to fair, interventions focus on providing the
students’ basic literacy and numeracy needs, supporting low-skilled teachers, and lifting
minimum quality standards of all schools in their system. These interventions include providing
scaffolding and motivation for low-skilled teachers and principals, getting all schools to
minimum quality standards, and getting students to attend school. Countries that showed success
at transitioning from poor to fair included Ghana, Chile, and the Western Cape South Africa
(Mourshed et al., 2010).
Countries in the second categor y of fair to good, which included Poland, had completed
the basic literacy and numeracy stage and were striving to improve them. The biggest challenge
in this category was configuring their system to include data, finance, teacher accountability, and
organization. At this stage, leaders begin to loosen central control. The major interventions at
this stage are establishing foundational components for data and accountability structures,
financial and organizational (i.e., governance) structures, and pedagogical structures. In Poland,
for example, the introduction of a system-wide assessment for Grade 10 students held educators
61
accountable for outcomes and also became the basis for a professional development model for
principals. Mourshed et al. (2010) noted that system-wide assessments do lift systems from the
fair to good categorizations of improvement.
In the third categor y of good to great, s ystems move from establishing structures to
professionalizing of educators. The emphasis is on teacher development, mirrored to practices in
law and medicine. Interventions in this stage include raising the calibre of new and existing
teachers and principals, and empowering school-based decision-making, specifically in relation
to providing schools the flexibility to introduce localized programs. Long Beach Union School
District in California, for example, focused on developing a common language and practice of
teaching and leadership in the system. To facilitate this emphasis, the district used student
performance data in an open manner and established a walk through philosophy in schools,
whereby senior leaders identified areas for teacher coaches. It further focused on pre-service
training and structured enhanced professional development opportunities for new teachers in the
district.
In the fourth and final categor y, s ystems that moved from great to excellent embedded
interventions including raising the calibre of beginning teachers and principals, creating
additional support mechanisms for professionals to focus on teaching and learning, and
sponsoring s ystem innovation across schools. Examples of systems in this categor y include Hong
Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Ontario, Canada. There is a strong focus on action research
in this category, and teachers take responsibility to improve their practice, set high standards, and
hold one another accountable. The shift is from technical training to collaboration and growth.
Overall, the improvement classification proposed by Mourshed et al. (2010) is applicable
to this research. The vast majority of interventions are process-based, focusing on teaching and
62
learning. Not surprisingly, change effort sustainability is embedded in organizational culture
change, fostered though collaborative structures. Collaboration keeps professional interaction in
these systems largel y focused on instruction and learning outcomes (Mourshed et al., 2010, p. 8).
Alberta school districts, within the larger context of the Alberta Education system, would all be
placed, to varying degrees, in the good to great intervention stage. The question investigated by
this case study is whether RVS moved or was moving toward the great to excellent
categorization.
Mourshed et al.(2010) also reported on igniters that sustain the difficult process of
change. The major barrier to long-term systemic change is that educators see it as too hard to
implement with little power and few resources. The researchers proposed three igniters to sustain
the change effort against the odds of success: a political or economic crisis, a high profile and
critical report about system performance, or a new strategic or political leader. One or more of
these igniters, according to Mourshed et al., can sustain the change effort, and in the great to
excellent category, at least one was present in the systems in that category.
In contrast to Kotter (2007), who proposed eight errors reform leaders make on the path
to transforming organizations, Mourshed et al. (2010) offered five steps to improvement:
1. They decide on non-negotiable items;
2. They install capable people in key positions;
3. They engage with all stakeholders to set, manage, and pace change, including
continuous communication to all the aforementioned;
4. They secure resources for the non-negotiable items; and
5. They get earl y wins and celebrate them to build momentum to drive toward the
vision. (p. 10)
63
A large-scale measurement system in relation to organizational maturity has also been
proposed by Reeves (2009). He debunked the myth that hierarchy is effective at translating
vision and charismatic leaders are needed. He argued, by citing Collins (2001), that charismatic
leaders do more harm than good because that is not enough in a hierarchical situation (p. 244).
This is in contrast to Mourshed et al. (2010), who proposed that an energetic and strategic leader
was an igniter to maintain change efforts. Nevertheless, Reeves advocated the power of networks
instead of hierarchies to create and sustain change. This concept is best explained as a web
without a spider (Barabasi, 2003).
In this Reeves (2009) model, organizational effectiveness and maturity move through five
stages. The first is characterized as contrived networks, wherein leaders want to encourage
communication within the organization but actually create the illusion of communication without
the reality (Dufour, 2007). Restructuring communications as a network is an illusion.
Spontaneous networks made up of nimble communication structures provide simple and clear
information without bureaucratic limitations and characterize the second level. The best
examples today exist within the realm of social media and its use by organizations. Third, co-
opted networks are brought into organizational operations for past and current members to meet.
The purpose of this level is to create an opportunity for sharing both within and outside of the
organization. Level four networks are nurtured and are neither contrived nor co-opted. Instead,
level four organizations create the freedom and space for individuals to establish their own
networks. Reeves cited 3M, which provides employees with time for personal invention and
exploration, and Google, which provides employees the opportunity to think, dream, explore,
and create. Opportunities exist today for individuals to share best practices and develop new ones
outside of geographical or political boundaries.
64
And finally, value-driven networks that are distinguished from the rest by their purpose
and orientation describe level five (Reeves, 2009). The purpose is not to drive organizational
goals per se, but to advance the greater good, cutting across specific functional requirements
such as human resources or finance. When established with this purpose, level five networks
become communities of practice, which are boundary def ying and outside bureaucratic control,
making them most likely to endure (Reeves, 2009, p. 249). In summary, Reeves proposed that
organizations are at one of the levels in their maturation and that networks, not hierarchal
structures and charismatic leaders, will be able to sustain organizational change. This proposition
is in response to what Hargreaves and Fink (2006) described as the difficulty in education
change: easy to propose, hard to implement, and extraordinarily difficult to sustain (p. 1).
Implications for district leadership in 2015. Large-scale reform efforts within the
education system require transformation of practice at all levels (Fullan, 2009b). District leaders
are now included in the discussion of how to reform education systems and are considered
integral to the change process. District leaders in 2015 must be far more than political liaisons or
resource managers: they must be instructional leaders who can communicate and collaboratively
develop a vision for the district. They must hold high expectations of all staff, and structure and
support capacity-building for all stakeholders.
District leaders today need to be far different from district leaders of two and three
decades ago. The primary instructional leader of a district today must be the superintendent. New
superintendents are now being recruited with this characteristic in mind (ECRA Group, 2010). It
is no longer satisfactory, if improved student achievement is the goal, for superintendents to
build and balance budgets, evaluate staff, build strategic plans and accountability reports, and
fulfill the accountability processes for government and the local governance team. They must
65
transcend old functions, be the principal of principals, and rally all stakeholders to coconstruct
and work toward a common vision. SBDM is negatively correlated to student achievement
(Waters & Marzano, 2006), and therefore leaders must build and execute within the concept of
team: transforming from a district of schools to a school district. The vision in Alberta for
education through to 2030 is called Inspiring Education (Alberta Education, 2010). This
transformational blueprint of educational reform requires district leaders to possess all of the
characteristics outlined herein and act in this fundamentally different manner.
Certainly not all district leaders are equipped for or comfortable with the new reality.
When challenges surface, one may revert to old modes of operating. Transforming the status quo
of a century-old education system requires transformation of oneself. Holding on to old wa ys of
managing and leading will only result in another failed large-scale reform effort (Levin, 2010).
Current research on the role of district leadership in large-scale change efforts is minimal,
with one primary exception. From 2004 to 2010, the Wallace Foundation, a not-for-profit
organization focussed on developing innovative ideas to solve important social problems,
commissioned research on the complex dyadic relationship between leadership at all levels in a
school division and student learning. Although many findings are grounded in the effect of the
role of principal and student learning, a significant cluster of findings were related to the role of
superintendents of schools and district leaders regarding the link to student learning outcomes
(Leithwood & Louis, 2012).
Leithwood and Louis (2012) found that district leaders need to establish clear
expectations for improvement; build a common core of support at the district level and
differentiated support at the school level; develop leadership capacity, especially in school
leaders; strive for continuity in district leadership; and take steps to monitor and sustain high
66
levels of student performance above and beyond standardized tests (p. 202). This comprehensive
research suggests characteristics of impactful district leadership practice not prevalent in the
literature, but nevertheless aligned to research that is available regarding how superintendents
and other district leaders can positively impact student learning outcomes.
A much larger bod y of research exists describing the characteristics of effective school
principals and even greater yet again with respect to characteristics of effective teachers. This
field is emerging, though, as researchers strive to describe the relationship between
superintendents and district staff in high-performing s ystems (Thomas & Seely-Brown, 2001).
And, in large part, the results are not fundamentally different from research on school principals
in terms of the importance of instructional leadership (Castagnola, 2005; Murphy & Hallinger,
1986), just within a more complex environment (whole system vs. whole school) and far more
political. Researchers are clear, however, that district-level leadership does have an impact on
student learning, no matter how discrepant the field with regard to the characteristics the
individual leaders must possess.
Summary
Key findings from the literature informed this study. District leadership, when embracing
a key set of actions, positively impacts student learning. The main characteristics include having
a vision, empowering staff, engaging stakeholders, establishing non-negotiable goals, measuring
progress, focusing on capacity building, communicating consistently and often, and fostering
high trust within the culture (see Table 1). Effective change leaders ultimately understand that
organizational culture critically impacts outcomes. District leadership has been recognized as
critical to performance of education systems, but only recentl y, and not universally. Educational
67
organizations are capable of change and move through predictable interventions, despite
economic circumstance.
Transformational change in education is largely accepted as needed early in this new
century, and the construct most commonly used is 21st-century learning, calling for new-age
competencies such as innovation, creativity, and collaboration. Although also not without
critique, 21st-century learning has emerged as the call to action to transform learning
organizations in the best interest of students. This transformational change, also referred to as
change of the second order, requires a decoupling from both the behaviourist and cognitivist
paradigms of the 20th century to be replaced with constructivism, where learners are focused on
inquiry and collaboration to foster competency of curricular outcomes coupled with assessment
that removes itself from the traditional lecture, memorize, and test methods of the past.
68
Chapter 3: Methodology
In this research I critically anal yzed the factors in RVS’ attempt to facilitate second-order
transformational change. This is an exploratory case study of the school division over a 4-year
period. Qualitative research is appropriate to examine and identify where transformational
change ma y have occurred. In this chapter I describe the research sample, design, data collection
methods, analysis and s ynthesis of results, ethical considerations, trustworthiness, and limitations
and delimitations. I begin by discussing case study, which framed the study.
Case Study
A case study explores an issue through one or more cases within a bounded system
(Creswell, 2007). This qualitative approach investigates a case over time through in-depth data
collection from multiple sources. Some researchers have contended a case study is not a
methodology but a choice of what is to be studied (Stake, 2005). Others have presented it as a
methodology or research strategy (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Yin, 2013). I view case study as a
methodology. The case study ma y be used in many situations as a research method, as with this
research, in examining group interaction in organizational processes. Yin (2013) explained that a
case study is the preferred method when the research questions are how or why something
occurred and when the research is contemporary, not historical:
There’s no formula, but your [researcher’s’] choice depends in large part on your
research question(s). The more that your questions seek to explain some present
circumstance (e.g. “how” or “wh y” some social phenomenon works), the more that case
study research will be relevant. The method is also relevant the more that your questions
require an extensive an “in-depth” description of some social phenomenon. (p. 5)
69
Another leading researcher in the field of case study is Merriam (1998). Merriam
contends that case study design is a way to gain understanding of a situation, where the process
of inquiry rather than the outcome of the research are of interest to the researcher. Merriam
acknowledged that the use of case study can often be misleading, and that in education the
research is more likely to be qualitative (p.19). Further, the focus of case study is to provide a
holistic description and explanation, not to claim any specific data collection methods (p. 26).
Although m y first research question (“To what extent did large-scale transformational
change occur in the school district from 2007 to 2011? ”) examined the extent to which change
occurred, the second question formed the core of this research: “What essential characteristics of
large-scale transformational change were identified as impactful in the district from 2007 to
2011? ” I attempted to extract the characteristics of large-scale transformational change within one district, as socially constructed by its leaders over a 4-year period, which accurately aligns to
the rationale of case study as a research methodology.
My worldview is social constructivism; it derives meaning from the jurisdiction’s actions
in relation to performance outcomes and stakeholder experiences. This worldview is often
confused with social constructionism. Both focus on the interactions of a group: the former
focuses on the learning that takes place because of these interactions, whereas the latter focuses
on the artifacts created through the interactions. Although man y artifacts were created during the
study period and are referenced at different points throughout this paper, my intent is to describe
the learning that took place and the characteristics of large-scale transformational change in the
school district as proposed by the leaders within it.
70
Research Design
This research was conducted holistically within the context and culture of RVS. An
exploratory case stud y best describes the inquiry design. I examined the reported quantitative
data about the system as a whole followed by the qualitative data from the research. The first
phase focused on analysis of large-scale quantitative data published by both Alberta Education
and RVS over the 4-year period. The second phase analyzed the qualitative and primary data
source, which consisted of a randomly selected sample of 12 school and 12 system leaders,
representative of diverse experiences and roles within the leadership function of the system,
interviewed by an external researcher. The 24 interviews provided rich descriptions of the nature
of the organization over the 4-year case study. I also reviewed various supplemental documents,
including Alberta Education documents, central district communications, and 3YPs and results
reports. Overall, I followed a series of steps: I reviewed the literature, focused on the main
drivers for the research; the project gained ethical approval through the Conjoint Ethics Board,
University of Calgar y, and RVS; research participants were invited to participate and gave
informed consent for their involvement; interviews were conducted by an external researcher; I
analyzed and synthesized all data using axial coding, leading to key themes; and I presented
recommendations and conclusions.
I examined publically reported quantitative data about RVS for the 2007–2011 school
years (RVS, 2011). The 2007–2008 school year served as the base year to compare the three
following years with, as changes were not fully introduced into the system until the summer of
2008, therefore impacting the 2008–2009 school year forward. The open, large-scale data were
examined to identify if a phenomenon was occurring in the district and to provide context for the
qualitative findings. I analyzed two sets of quantitative data:
71
1. APORI (Accountability Pillar Online Reporting Instrument) data collected by Alberta
Education: These data are largel y quantitative, reporting on standardized assessment
achievement at Grades 3, 6 ,9, and 12, as well as surveys conducted with parents,
students, and teachers in Grades 4, 7, and 10; and
2. RVS jurisdictional survey data collected and analyzed b y a third-party contractor:
RVS survey data were collected to inform the progress on goals, outcomes, and
strategies within the 3YP that would not be measured by APORI data. These locally
derived action areas emerged from the stakeholder collaborations; once in the plan,
they had to be measured or they had no validity. The first year for the data was the
2008–2009 school year, and data were collected each year thereafter to provide a
grounded view into the school jurisdiction results during the study time frame. (RVS,
2009)
Interviews were conducted with two groups of 12 leaders. The first group was made up of
school principals. There were 40 school principals at the time of the study. Although I initially
intended to differentiate by rural and urban, and by large and small schools based upon a cut line
of 350 students, circumstances did not allow for this sorting. In one of the proposed categories,
urban and small schools (greater than 350 students), only two schools met the criteria. This did
not allow for participants’ identities to be protected as thoroughly as the y needed to be, which
was of paramount importance, so participants were identified only as school principals with
pseudonyms. No other identifying information was used or collected.
The second group of interviews was conducted with central leaders. RVS had four
associate superintendents, 12 directors (reporting to associates), and a principal-at-large
(reporting to a director) at the time of the research. Of that pool of 17 individuals, 12 responded
72
with no further delineation amongst the central leadership job classes. Although the executive
team (superintendent and associate superintendents) met twice per month, one of those meetings
was with the entire leadership group of 18 (including me, the superintendent). In short, the 18
central leaders were very much aware of and responsible for the work of the system and the
successes of one another’s individual portfolios.
Leadership team meetings occurred five times per year for a full day (a half day in
collaborative meetings and a half day in meetings by level—elementary, middle, high school, or
multi-level). These meetings included all principals, many assistant principals, and all central
leaders. Lastl y, man y collaborative structures were established, including superintendent
working committees that fulfilled the mandate of recommending procedures to the
superintendent. These committees focused on many different areas, including human resources,
leadership, and learning, and were made up of central and school leaders (RVS, 2010).
Participants were experientially knowledgeable about the system and therefore provided
informed responses.
Participants
Within the district, interview participants included the random selection of 12 school
leaders and 12 district leaders. Leaders were approached through a form with an invitation to
participate and an overview of the research. This represented my onl y direct contact with
potential participants. The instructions were clear that consent forms were to be sent directly to
the research assistant, and the first 12 received in each category (school leader or central leader)
were accepted. Participants chose a pseudonym and coordinated interview times directly with the
research assistant.
73
Each group of leaders performs critical leadership roles in the system but comes from
different perspectives and fulfils different leadership functions. In addition, the blend between
school and district leaders provided for a varied response in relation to the characteristics of
transformational change in the district. An additional mix of experiences between central and
school leaders was realized because school leaders in the district were largely former teacher
leaders and central leaders were largel y former school leaders. The central leaders were not
executive team members and worked closely with school leaders and teachers as their primary
function. The executive team was made up of the superintendent of schools (the researcher and a
nonparticipant in interviews), four associate superintendents, and the director of
communications. Therefore, at least 7 of the 12 district leader interview participants were
directly involved in working with schools from a district leadership perspective.
Data Collection
To obtain an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon being studied, multiple methods
and triangulation of data are needed (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012; Yin, 2013). This approach adds
rigor, depth, and breadth to the study, as well as data (Creswell, 2007; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011).
First, in relation to survey data, the district conducted a broad-based survey open to all
students in Grades 4 to 12, all staff, and all parents, in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 (RVS, 2011).
In addition, Alberta Education conducted a survey in each of those years open to Grade 4, 7, and
10 students, teachers, and parents. The number of responses to the RVS survey ranged from 3,500 in 2008 to 11,300 in 2011 (RVS, 2011). The Alberta Education survey, as part of the
APORI data, ranged from 3,000 to 4,500 respondents (Alberta Education, 2011a). The surveys
both used Likert scale and open-ended questions. This public data, published in the annual RVS
results report (RVS, 2011), served to anchor and compliment other data collection methods.
74
Second, interviews were a fundamental component in this exploratory case study, as is
common in qualitative research (Kvale & Brinkman, 2009; Seidman, 2006). For this study, given
their leadership roles within the district, I targeted school principals, associate superintendents,
directors of learning, and central learning coaches. I identified these groups because of the
research focus on district leadership, and both central leaders and school leaders have a
significant role in large-scale change. Twelve of 40 principals and 12 of 17 central leaders were
randomly selected via an invitation to participate within the purposeful two-category sampling. I
hired a research assistant to organize and conduct the interviews to mitigate any perceived
conflict of interest or coercion. The research assistant emailed the leaders an overview of the
research (see Appendix B) and asked them to consider participating. After the initial contact, the
research assistant gathered demographic information (see Appendix C) and participants
communicated by email or by phone. A consent form was presented to each participant, with a
cover letter outlining the research, prior to the taped interview (see Appendix D).
Interviews were scheduled at the participants’ convenience. The interview consisted of 20
open-ended questions (see Appendix E), intended to draw out understandings of thematic
findings from the reported qualitative data and to provide the participants the opportunity to
contribute information not necessarily directl y related to the questions asked (Yin, 1994). The
intent was to provide a sampling of people intricately involved in leading large-scale change
during the 4-year study period. Years of experience in the current position was not a criterion for
selection, which provided for the variance that during the study period some school leaders may
have been teachers within or outside of the district and some central leaders may have been
principals in the district. As well, some central leaders were new to the district or arrived at some
75
point during the study period. They were able to compare different operations in relation to their
previous district.
Last, in relation to artifacts, I collected and examined numerous written records to
enhance the trustworthiness of the data by triangulation, including board meeting minutes, parent
Safe and caring learning community 88% 86% 86% Significant
met Access to specialized programs 78% 74% 75% Significant
2. Learners are Success as 21st-century learners 89% 87% 88% Significant competent, qualified, and dedicated 21st-century learning culture 81% 80% 79% Significant
3. Learners are civic,
Civil stewards
86%
85%
85%
Significant
social, and Social stewards 87% 84% 85% Significant
opportunities Seamless learning transitions 84% 83% 83% Significant are distinct, continuous, and
Multifaceted, systematic, professional learning
90%
90%
90%
Not significant
systematic. Jurisdictional leadership capacity
89%
88%
89%
Not significant
the learner. Effective instructional practices 85% 82% 82% Significant
Success as co mmunity of learners
92%
92%
92%
Not significant
6. Learning environments
Access to contemporar y technology
85%
81%
81%
Significant
enable the acquisition of
Effective resource allocation 81% 82% 81% Not significant
21st-centur y skills.
Support for 21st-century learning environments
82%
80%
79%
Not significant
Table 4
RVS Accountability Pillar
Rocky View Schools Previous T hree-year
Goal Outco me Current year average Improvement
environmental stewards.
4. Learning
Environmental stewards 87% 87% 86% Not significant
5. Instruction challenges and engages
Student-centred curriculum deliver y 81% 78% 78% Significant
Note – Data were RVS generated, but statistical significance formulae used were the same as Alberta Education in relation to APORI.
The RVS accountability structure was a practice commended by Alberta Education (see
Appendix F). Only two other school boards had developed a comprehensive, district-specific
survey to measure local satisfaction with performance. Although the baseline year yielded high
88
initial results (many responses with 80% satisfaction or higher), the district continued to show
progress.
The purpose of examining large-scale and previously reported quantifiable data was to
demonstrate that a phenomenon was occurring in the district over the study period. The large-
scale assessment performance on provincial exams, survey data from Alberta Education, and
RVS survey data all indicate an upward spiral in both performance and culture. However, this
statement is not without critique.
Large-scale assessment performance both from the province and RVS showed
improvement in most areas during the study period, although not in all areas. Provincial
assessment levels for PATs and diploma exams were maintained in a number of subject areas but
declined in others. When examining the 4-year charts, and using the 2007–2008 results as the
baseline, Grade 3 math, Grade 6 French language arts, Grade 9 math, and Grade 6 and 9 social
studies results at the acceptable level were lower in 2010–2011, the final year of results for this
study. Although all other subject areas were marginally (less than 2%) or significantly higher
(greater than 2%), the goal of all students thriving in a system transforming in their best interest
does not appear to be complete across all grade levels and subject areas. At the excellence level,
Grade 6 language arts, and Grade 9 social studies, math, and language arts declined.
It is interesting to note here that the district appears to have had long-standing excellence
performance issues in relation to provincial results. Although man y more subject areas increased
than declined in this categor y, the provincial results are higher in approximately half of the
writings. This is a complicated phenomenon, because the district also has very high measures,
significantly higher than the province, on participation rates in four or more diploma exams and
transition to post-secondary study rates.
89
The diploma exam results over the period tell a similar story. At the acceptable level (50– 80%), results for English 30-1, Math 30A, Biology 30, and Science 30 were lower than the
baseline year although closely deviated in correlation to provincial results. At the excellence
level (greater than 80%), English 30-1, Biology 30, and Science 30 were lower in 2010–2011
than in 2007–2008.
As a result of analysis of study artifacts, a critique emerged within board meetings in
relation to large-scale performance data. As superintendent, I was questioned at various intervals
while tabling accountability reports whether the work of the district as articulated in the 3YP was
increasing performance on provincial exams (RVS, 2010). Overall, the performance was higher.
Further, as previously mentioned, other measures of system performance cannot be
ignored, as they impact overall district performance. The district had the lowest dropout rate of
the 62 boards in 2010–2011, at 1.1% (Alberta Education, 2011a), which in turn has an impact on
overall district results. Another entire body of research could be conducted focused on unpacking
the meaning of these results and the multiple correlations between and among different data from
Alberta Education through APORI. Further, in relation to another body of research, the
examination of cohort data can truly show the teaching impact, both positive and negative, with
the same group of students. This isolates, although not completely, the difference of one cohort’s
performance against another’s when comparing one year to the next. With that model, an
analysis of Grade 3 math performance, for example, is then compared to math performance in Grades 6 and 9.
In relation to RVS accountability data, the number of participants grew from over 3,500
in year one (2008–2009) to over 11,000 in year 3 (2010–2011). Once again, although the results
were strong, and arguably even stronger than the APORI data, a critique emerged within the
90
Board of Trustees that in specific areas, parent, student, and teacher satisfaction was not good
enough (RVS, 2012). The measure of students feeling safe on the bus, for example, was a
consistently low measure throughout the 4 years analyzed here. There was concern that the
results should have been higher, or that the questions were flawed (RVS, 2012). The results,
given the size of the sample, and that it was open to all Grade 4 to 12 students, all parents, all
teachers, and all support staff, are high. An open survey of that nature provides the opportunity
for anyone not happy with education in the district, or education in general, to voice his or her
dissatisfaction. In consideration of that factor alone, the district survey reveals high levels of
satisfaction with the culture. Perhaps the greatest critique is that it is indiscernible whether the
culture was always that way in the district, or whether it was a product of the work of the district
over the 4-year study period.
Qualitative Findings
As noted in Chapter 3, I derived six themes from the qualitative data—strategic plan,
professional learning, collaboration, trust, accountability, and communications—and I discuss
each in turn.
Finding 1: Collaborative creation of a strategic plan was both clarifying and
empowering. Participants identified that being engaged in the creation of the strategic plan
created ownership and understanding of the jurisdiction’s direction, which had been lacking in
the past. This was a strong consensus (23 of 24 responses; 96%). Formerly, a consultant wrote
the 3YP over a 1-week period after meeting with members of the executive team (RVS, 2007).
This previous state was characterized by the jurisdiction operating as a system of independent
schools, with principals, staff, parents, and students focused on their own school plan but unclear
of the jurisdictional one.
91
Respondents repeatedly stated that the direction the jurisdiction was headed was clear.
School leader (SL) 3, Carl, noted:
I suppose part of it is when the plan came out it was something I reall y believed in and it
was really eas y for me to invest in it. So I have actually done a lot of committee work
myself. We have done a lot of work at various schools around the 21st century attributes.
Of course, our school had planned alliance with the Rocky View plan, and I personally
have found that a really strong framework for guiding the school. (Carl, SL 3, 2013)
Carl reinforces the concept of a system strategic plan that provided strong direction for
the school from the principal’s perspective. This phenomenon was not present prior to the plan,
as most principals did not know the content of the district strategic plan early in 2007.
SL 5, Elizabeth, offered an historical perspective of the impact of the process of building
the plan:
So bringing students, teachers, administrators, Education Centre personnel, and
community members who didn’t necessarily have children in schools coming together to
really talk about what education means to them, and what began with environments with
end goal of what we want to achieve, and then having a sa y and a voice in how we are
going to get there. It was a pretty powerful experience to be a part of that. At my table I
ended up being the only school administrator with a couple of parents and a couple of
high school students, and it was a fantastic feeling to engage in those rich conversations
about their perspectives of education. We came together two or three times but my
understanding was that we would change the mindset of the division with that key word
“we”, as I know from being in RVSD for 22 years that was a very empowering piece for
everybod y. (Elizabeth, SL 5, 2013)
92
Elizabeth expressed appreciation for not only the rich conversation with diverse
stakeholders, but a view that after 22 years, there was an ethos emerging of one system, we
instead of us and them, as the vision was being cocreated. This empowerment of staff to function
as a team and direct efforts toward a common goal appears both to have been mobilizing and
clarifying.
Despite this positive response, not all staff were engaged in the process and therefore not
as knowledgeable about the plan or as passionate about carrying it out. Although all participants
referenced the strategic plan as critical for alignment and system clarity, some participants
referenced the loss of autonomy and minimization of true SBDM. The strategic plan is a
provincial requirement, and formerly, as with most boards today, it was little more than a
compliance document. School leaders, in this district and most others, had become accustomed
to education plans that students, parents, and teachers focused on at the school level. Although in
this district principals continued to create school education plans, the system goals and outcomes
were now the school goals and outcomes through a consistent template (RVS, 2008). For
experienced principals, this was an immediate and abrupt loss of some local autonomy.
Finding 2: Building staff capacity through a new professional learning framework
was integral to strengthening system capacity. The overriding finding was that establishing a
professional learning framework fostered staff professional growth to transform practice. This
was a strong relationship (22 of 24 responses; 92%). At the launch of the 3YP in the summer of
2008, laptops were provided to each teacher, principal, central staff member, and trustee. This
was coupled with the abandonment of a 5-day professional development structure, replaced by a
10-day professional learning framework (RVS, 2008). School-based development days increased
to six; the other four days, staff engaged in communities of practice.
93
The communities of practice were organic in nature, and once a staff member created an
essential question(s) to shape the inquiry, other staff members were invited to join. The
classroom teacher, principal, and support staff members, not the district, drove this form of
professional learning. Individuals identified an area of professional growth and established a
learning community. Teachers, principals, support staff, and central staff owned their
professional learning to facilitate personal professional growth that moved the system goals
forward. The four face-to-face meetings were opportunities for discussion, but the collaboration
continued between meetings, throughout the year, in a digital format. Participants consistently
referenced that the ethos was that “we were all learners,” and that professional learning was
ongoing, embedded, and systematic (staff worked with one another from across the system). In
2008–2009, 154 communities of practice were created, and they remained relatively constant
during the study period (RVS, 2013). Central leader (CL) 2, Eagle, commented:
We do have a very strong commitment to professional learning and a multi-faceted
strategic approach to that, not only a strong emphasis on school-based professional
learning, but the communities of practice which emanate out of teaching and
administrative staff sense of opportunity in need for professional learning, although I like
aspects of it that is the ownership that comes from the community practice model. (Eagle,
CL 2, 2013)
Similarly, S L 7, Margaret, noted,
Professional learning days, probably half of what we have, which is a very strong
statement about the importance of being learners, and I think that has been key in this
plan also is that it’s not just the students being learners and us doing things to them. It’s
94
about we are all learners and moving forward. I think that is really, reall y important.
(Margaret, S L 7, 2013)
Participants consistently reported that professional learning was integral to cultural
change, and the expectation that everybod y was a learner was both engaging and shifted the way
staff viewed their own role in the system. This district action was critical to becoming a learning
organization. Learning organizations are, according to Senge (1990),
Organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they
truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective
aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together.
(p. 3)
Participants expressed the importance of systematic learning opportunities as a means to
building individual staff capacity that in turn resulted in larger-scale change in shorter periods of
time than they had witnessed before in the district.
Although participants identified building staff capacity and developing the new
professional learning framework as integral to building s ystem capacity, not all staff participated
(160 communities of practice x 8 people/committee = 1,280 staff). Additionally, some staff
believed the changes underway created too much pressure on them in relation to the time they
had and viewed some elements, such as communities of practice, as another time pressure. ATA
survey data, released in 2011 and entitled Transforming Our Future Together, clearly stated that
teachers wanted more flexibility in their professional development and that the majority of
participants believed they could not maintain a work–life balance. With a staff of 2,000, the
district had approximately two-thirds of employees engaged in a learning community. The
paradox quickly emerged, based upon the ATA survey, that people were too busy to spend time
95
on learning. The education establishment since its inception has embedded the view that adults
know all the information they need; their role is to disseminate knowledge and processes. That
was the learning process: Adults knew best what needed to be done, and teachers taught courses.
Nevertheless, the critique was consistent that people did not have time to invest in learning—
they were too busy doing (RVS, 2011).
Finding 3: Collaborative structures and distributed leadership fostered a leadership
team striving for collective impact. Participants consistently referenced the various
opportunities to engage in collaborative work to help actualize the vision as important for
systemic change in the school jurisdiction. This finding also was strongl y related (20 out of 24
responses; 83%). While the 3YP was being developed in a collaborative manner with various
stakeholders, principal meetings were rebranded as leadership team meetings and the focus was
on collaboration and learning instead of information dissemination. Superintendent working
committees comprised of both central and school leaders were established in critical areas such
as human resources, leadership, and professional learning. The primary mandate of these
committees was to develop operating procedures to support the emerging vision of the
organization. Similar to the accountability finding, school leaders participated in collaborative
sharing sessions biannually to discuss both strategic plan initiatives and results.
Leadership responsibility was shifted from a central authoritarian structure to a
distributed model, which furthered empowered leaders to own the results of the system. A shift
from a “power over” to a “power with” paradigm (Coburn, 2001) emerged and was referenced
by participants. This in turn impacted levels of organizational trust, which is an independent
finding of the research. One central leader noted:
96
That’s interesting because I’ve been working this way for a long time. But I see more and
more of that collaboration and team building with that. I think one of things that has
changed is that we work as a team. So for me the shift is actually having that team and
be[ing] able to model what it is that we want to see. Our space that we work in has shifted
from cubicles of desks to collaborative workspaces. (Bill, CL 8, 2013)
Similarly, a school leader stated,
What attracted me to leadership, what convinced me that it was okay to get into it, was
the fact that there is this rich environment: an environment of collaboration. Suddenly, I
was working with two administrators in two other high schools, and we became this
powerful team that worked together, listened to each other, made decisions
collaboratively. We felt comfortable to do that. We felt supported by central office
leaders to do that because of the three-year plan, because we were trying to innovate and
trying to get constructivism going among our staff. (Tim, SL 6, 2013)
Many participants made reference, in various ways, to the culture of collaboration that
emerged. Both within formal structures of working committees with decentralized authority, to
informal modes of working together to advance and champion the realization of the vision, their
belief was that leadership was distributed amongst a very large team all accountable for the same
results. This finding, that establishing collaborative structures and distributed leadership fostered
a leadership team striving for collective impact, was not embraced by all school and district
leaders: a minority continued to believe that a decentralized, local autonomy approach was best.
Further, similar to the critique of professional learning, leaders began to be critical of the
time it took to be collaborative. Principals, assistant principals, and central leaders alike eagerl y
sought to be members of the superintendent working committees in 2008. By 2011, the number
97
of committees had diminished from seven to five, and membership on those committees was 20% lower (RVS, 2012). Some participants noted that the transformational change that was
embarked upon by the district was an incredible amount of work compared to the recent past,
and opportunities or expectations to engage in collaborative work exacerbated the feeling (SL 6,
2013). This is an interesting critique given that the opposite of forming collaborative structures
to cocreate the processes and procedures for the district would be the counter-intuitive central
control by executives of the same work, who would issue directives to schools to comply.
Finding 4: Leadership behaviour was focused on building trust. Leadership
behaviour, over time, fostered cultural trust, which in turn “unlocked” the system to be
innovative, creative, and risk tolerant. This theme was strongly related (19 of 24 responses;
79%). Participants referenced that the central leadership team modelled a collaborative and
decentralized leadership role, and encouraged school leaders to do the same. Trust was built by
the way leaders in authority positions responded to adversity, starting from the superintendent
and executive team and resonating throughout the system. When people are most vulnerable—
when they take calculated risks that don’t work out perfectly—leaders must be accepting and
nurturing of those taking the risk. The by-products are both relational trust, and, if systematized,
cultural trust within the organization (Cosner, 2009).
Participants responded that they felt supported as they tried new practices and methods,
which in turn, as they have described, fostered innovation and creativity towards the big goals of
the jurisdiction. Trust permeated from the boardroom to the classroom, and an upward spiral was
created whereby innovative thought became the norm, not the exception. Not all school and
system leaders remained with the system during the 4-year study, and therefore a possible
explanation might be that they did not fit this culture or did not agree with the changes
98
underway. It is entirely possible that, at least to some degree, the dissenting voices were removed
from the organization, or that they simply resigned to work elsewhere.
Nevertheless, this phenomenon of trust is not easily achieved. Like other findings, it is
interdependent, and may be the most significant condition of large-scale organizational change.
Traditional business paradigms anchor power structures into organizations, which may erode,
even completely eradicate, trust between people and within the culture. Richard, a school leader,
explained,
So nothing was happening; principals were closing their door, they didn’t want to be on
the radar for good, bad, and for anything because it was a risk. You were at risk of getting
into trouble. So I think it’s now that whole environment of let’s try things, let’s work at it,
let’s share it, and those people way ahead are going to move quicker, and we need to
support everybod y in their learning. (Richard, SL 9, 2013)
Richard’s response summarizes the majority of perspectives shared by participants as a
window into their lived experience. Some participants compared between previous school board
employers and RVS, while others compared pre-2008 to post-2008 within the school jurisdiction.
Regardless, leaders expressed they felt empowered to take risks in the best interest of students,
an outcome of a high trust environment, which in turn encouraged teachers to do the same.
Although onl y a few participants reference cultural trust per se, relational and cultural trust were
systemic as the fundamental condition for this organizational asset. Leaders must behave their
way out of s ystemic and cultural conditions that are manifestations of long-term organizational
behaviour. Talking their way out of situations that are the result of organizational behaviour will
not be successful. These behavioural changes to an organization require high levels of cultural
trust (Bryk & Schnieder, 2002).
99
Trust is built by demonstrating one is trustworthy (Br yk & Schneider, 2002), for it is an
attribution given to an individual by others. Ever y situation and every conversation either builds
relational trust or erodes it. Paulo, a central leader, also spoke about trust:
It’s fundamentally about trust, because if you know that you are in a trusting relationship,
in anything you do in life, you are much more empowered to move forward always. And
the superintendent and executive team trust the people with whom they work. And if
there is something with which he is not comfortable, he [superintendent] will say no. And
I respect that. I don’t have any issue with that. And I ma y not agree with it, but I will
always support it, because I trust him. (Paulo, CL 6, 2013)
Participants believed that the change articulated in the strategic plan was the absolute
right action for students yet was also complicated to initiate and very disconcerting—especially
to classroom teachers. In a previous low-trust environment, the experienced district leaders
referenced that their role had been to protect staff from authority figures. With the launch of the
plan and a collaborative ethos, they needed to open up and work together as a system. The
participants were clear that the risks that needed to be taken, to unlearn old processes and learn
new ones, required a high level of trust with positional leaders, for in the past risks were not
attempted for fear of failure and disciplinary measures. It appears that a culture of high trust was
an important enabler of the large-scale change embarked upon in this district. Participants
referenced that this took significant time to establish, not only due to past experiences of low
trust and hierarchical power structures, but also due to the launch in 2008 of many new processes
which initially were identified as a loss of school autonomy.
This finding, that leadership behaviour was focused on building trust, which in turn “unlocked” the system to be innovative, creative, and risk tolerant, was not universally supported
100
either. Although many participants noted they felt they could take risks in the best interest of
student learning, some believed that challenges to the overarching view of the district vision
were not supported. Three central leaders were unexpectedly announced to be moving to new
positions in other districts or learning institutions over the study period. Similarly, five principals
of the 40 retired or moved to other school districts. Although not overtly stated by an y
participant, it is possible that dissenters of the district vision were counselled to leave or sought
employment elsewhere. The turnover, however, was not uncharacteristic of the last two 4-year
periods of leadership staffing in the district (RVS, 2012).
Finding 5: Accountability was frequently identified as a driver for organizational
change. Accountability for results as aligned to the 3YP was frequently mentioned as a driver for
organizational change, although the relationship was weaker (10 out of 24 responses; 42%).
Participants indicated that the 3YP was omnipresent throughout the jurisdiction, from board and
leadership team meetings to staff meetings and professional learning days at the school level.
They also indicated that this was in contrast to past experiences within the jurisdiction in that the
strategic plan was used as a catalyst for change that would provide recommendations moving
forward and benchmarks to evaluate progress.
Two annual meetings were held with the executive team to review the annual results
report (in the fall) and the school education plan (in the spring). These meetings were designed
as professional conversations regarding the aspirational (the education plan) followed by the
actual (the results report). This became known as a cadence of accountability (Cove y, 2006), the
blend between the windshield and rear-view mirror perspectives of school and district
operations. Participants cited these documents as catalysts for providing an unwavering focus on
the strategic goals of the jurisdiction.
101
It is interesting, however, that participant responses were not as strong as originally
predicted, especially from the 12 school leaders. At the district level, quarterly reports were
provided to the Board of Trustees on action plans being worked on to advance the goals of the
3YP, which in turn rolled up into the jurisdictional annual report. Semi-annual principal cohort
meetings, arranged b y area, grade level configuration, or best practice, were held to discuss the
initiatives in an open forum at the school level (RVS, 2009). The 3YP was the basis for all
professional conversations, underpinned by accountability structures, as noted by Gus, CL 4:
Well, the three-year plan made a big difference to people like me. First of all, people
bought into it much quicker when you see people who are leading you that have that
passion and strong belief—it’s not just written on paper but we were also living it. And
looking for change became more accountable to a lot of the things in the past that may
have been school-wide initiatives and now we were looking at how it counts and the
strategies to get there. And we were sharing those with the superintendent and executive.
So as I said, we were held accountable for those and not even written down but we are
also talking them (three-plan goals, outcomes, strategies) and he [the superintendent] was
coming out to the school, as well as his executive team, and they were looking for these
things. (Gus, CL 4, 2013)
Gus expressed an important concept of being held accountable for goals, not simply
creating a strategic plan and allowing results happen as they ma y. In other words, goals the
organization had committed to framed conversations on a regular basis as data were analyzed
and accountability reports were created. This structure describes the expectation of action and
measure reporting that emerged in the district. Collins (2001) also referenced the importance of
102
regular and ongoing performance analysis within private sector organizations that consistently
beat market indices, no matter the economic conditions.
However, this characteristic had the weakest relationship of all themes, especially among
school leaders. Although school leaders were intricately involved in accountability meetings and
processes, few articulated the accountability measures as integral to large-scale transformation.
This aligns to the premise that accountability, versus building capacity, is a wrong driver (Fullan,
2008). Not all participants agreed that they should be focused on system-derived results, and once
again a criticism of top-down decision-making emerged. School principals also were concerned
about the time required to have accountability meetings with senior executives. Perhaps most
interesting, a widespread critique of large-scale assessments—PATs and diploma exams—has
existed in Alberta, largely driven by the ATA (2004), dating back to the onset of the
administration of exams in 1984 and APORI in 2002. The term “accountability,” therefore,
within an education context as assessed by educators, is a negative one.
Tables 5 and 6 show the frequency of participant comments that could be coded to one of
the six large-scale organizational characteristics extracted from the literature. The themes also
represent a prediction of what participants would express as impactful in the transformational
process. Participants listed in Table 5 are pseudonyms of central leaders; those listed in Table 6
are the second group of 12 school leaders. It is interesting that school leaders did not identify two
of the six themes, accountability and communications, as important to large-scale change.
103
Table 5
Central Leaders’ Views in Relation to Change Themes
T hemes of successful large-scale organizational change
Name 3YP Learning Collaboration T rust Communications Accountability
1. Randall
2. Eagle
3. Joseph
4. Gus
5. Dan
6. Paulo
7. Jessie
8. Bill
9. Hattrick
10. Anthony
11. George
12. Sam
Total 11 11 10 7 9 6
104
Table 6 School Leaders’ Views in Relation to Change Themes
T hemes of successful large-scale organizational change
Name 3YP Learning Communications Collaboration T rust Accountability
1. Fodo
2. Lisa
3. Carl
4. Mbrown
5. Elizabeth
6. T im
7. Margaret
8. Genieve
9. Richard
10. Joan
11. Luke
12. China
Total
12
11
5
10
12
4
Finding 6: Strong communications were identified as important for cultural change.
Communication structures and processes were consistent and unrelenting, and were identified as
important. This theme had a weaker relationship (14 of 24 responses; 58%). Commencing in
mid-2007, communications functions began to change radically. Internal and external
communication tactics began to be rebuilt in an effort to support the generative 3YP, which was
still being formulated. An overarching ethos for corporate and school-based communications was
anchored in the teachings of Good to Great (Collins, 2001) as the school jurisdiction embraced a
culture of transparency (RVS, 2008).
105
The website was redesigned to be the repository of all information in the system, with the
expectation that office binders were rendered irrelevant and redundant, not to be updated. This
ethos underpinned the communications platform and created the expectation that all district
information, subject to privacy limitations, would be made public. The website also hosted
internal collaborative work centres, which were moved to the public side once complete. The
vision was consistent across the system: communications functions sorted all information pushes
into the context of the 3YP. The outward-facing view of the school jurisdiction became repetitive
and consistent in its messaging, and internally, according to participants, became a powerful
vehicle for alignment, collaboration, and the building of a team-oriented culture.
Communication function in any organization may be underestimated in organizational
transformation attempts, but as with transformation in general, it is another critical function that
must align alongside all other work and consistently champion the imperative for change
(Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). People will not care what an organization is
changing until they understand why (Sinek, 2012), and communication obviously fulfills an
integral component of why an organization is changing to enlist stakeholder support. A school
leader explained:
The portrait of the 21st century learner was created with our first three-year plan, and
gave all of us a visual of what we were working toward—the 10 competencies we wanted
to instill in kids and be ourselves. It’s ever ywhere—this may the onl y room in the whole
division it’s not in! But I give a lot of credit to communications for this. Early on it
wasn’t clear, but we all became very dependent on our communications to add clarity,
and to help others understand. I think it has been a critical tool for us. (Luke, SL 11,
2013)
106
Participants talked about vision alignment and clarity in the district, even though this was
extraordinarily complex and challenged the prevailing and historical paradigm of education.
Communications as a function was not the driver for change, but what is clear from the
responses is that it is one of many functions and actions that must be transformed in order to roll-
out system transformation. It is interesting to note that like the next theme—accountability—this
was overall a weaker correlation based upon participant responses. Again, school leaders did not
consistently note communications to be as important a change characteristic as the other four
themes (strategic plan, professional learning, collaboration, and trust). A similar conclusion
could be drawn here, that school principals, being further removed from centrally coordinated
operations such as accountability structures and communication tactics, did not value their
contribution toward large-scale transformation to same degree as central leaders did.
Communications were criticized for diminishing local autonomy yet again. In addition to
some leaders feeling that they could not speak freely but had to speak with a common voice that
did not allow for new ideas, some school leaders resisted standardized communication templates,
websites, advertising, media access, and protocols, as they minimized local decision-making.
The overarching vision of the strategic plan and accompanying accountability structures,
including school education templates and standardized goals and outcomes as previously
discussed, was followed by a further erosion of school autonomy with standardized
communication processes, protocols, and visual identities. Principals, central leaders, and even
trustees of the board were not free to engage in conversation with the media without first
working with corporate communications. The superintendent delegated authority to staff to speak
to the media where appropriate, as the board chair did with trustees. Advertising was coordinated
centrally and school websites were transitioned to central standards (RVS, 2008). Some leaders
107
criticized the top-down control of these system operations, which one again could be viewed as
manifestation of the larger debate of central vs. local control, or top-down versus bottom-up
decision-making.
Unanticipated Findings
As with many qualitative research studies, unanticipated or bonus findings emerge from
the data (Yin, 2008). Coding the interview data produced three significant and unanticipated
findings that are worth noting here.
Finding 1: System alignment. Alignment of schools, jurisdiction, and province is
unprecedented. Eight of 20 respondents attributed the alignment both within the jurisdiction and
with the province as significant to the cultural transformation underway. Another six participants
noted alignment with Alberta Education and the Inspiring Education (Alberta Education, 2010)
vision as critical. However, the aforementioned grouping noted specifically the Ministerial Order
on Student Learning (Alberta Education, 2013), released at the start of the interviews with
participants, as evidence of alignment from top to bottom and bottom to top. Historically, the
most difficult alignment in education reform has been with government authorities to classroom
practice and back, as described by Fullan (2013). Six participants specifically noted Fullan’s
(2006) book Breakthrough, a book that was neither specifically studied nor highlighted within
the district. Participants also referred to the Ministerial Order as comforting with respect to the
work of the jurisdiction over the previous four years.
Well, I would sa y we are [more aligned] because there is a more nested approach to
leadership within the organization, and Fullan writes about this in his book Breakthrough
[Fullan, Hill, & Crevola, 2006]. He advocates that leadership in an education system
should be connected from the province to the jurisdiction to the schools, and I think that
108
we have really demonstrated that, especially in the jurisdiction–school connectivity.
(Joseph, CL 2, 2013)
Finding 2: Clarity of vision. With 24 open-ended interviews, responses understandably
varied. After coding the data and extracting themes, another unanticipated phenomenon emerged
from the rich description of lived experiences in RVS: All participants noted that the clarity of
vision and purpose were unprecedented. One could successfully argue that central leaders,
working closely with the executive team, should all know and understand deeply the vision of
the jurisdiction. What is indeed surprising is that all 12 school leaders took time to note in their
responses that clarity of the vision and strategies to move forward were critical drivers of their
work. Although possibly replicated in other studies, this finding would be highl y unlikely. The
disconnection between jurisdictional and school goals is typicall y similar to the disconnection
between the regulating authority (in this case, Alberta Education) and the district itself.
These articulation gaps could be responsible at least in part for the lack of whole system
change over the last four decades despite significant effort to do so. A school leader explained,
Well, I assume there is a lot of alignment. We are talking about the 21st century learner,
and then the Ministerial Order on Student Learning just came out from Alberta Education
and confirmed all of the work we have been doing. It [the MO on student learning] really
spoke loudly to me, and I loved the part where it was so clear in language and is very
uncomplicated, but I also like the fact that it said do not focus on content anymore—
anybod y can find that. (Tim, SL 6, 2013)
Finding 3: Weakness of accountability and communication correlations.
Accountability structures and communication processes did not show strongly amongst
participants. The literature review was clear: Leading researchers on the topic of educational
109
change, education transformation, and leading educational transformation cited strong
accountability structures and communication processes as critical for success (Dufour, 2007;
Fullan, 2013; Waters & Marzano, 2006). Although mentioned infrequently by central leaders,
neither theme was extracted from school leaders consistently. This is a curious and unanticipated
finding of this research.
One possible explanation for this finding may be derived from the view of the
organization based upon role. A principal, despite the district’s best efforts, is by nature alienated
from central office discussions and workflow on a daily basis, just as central leaders do not truly
understand the daily context of school leadership, even if recently transitioned from such a
position. In other words, to truly understand the view of an organization in the midst of
significant change, it appears that a leader needs to be fully situated within that context. District
leadership can therefore foster transformational change in a district, which is in response to
transforming into a 21st century learning organization, which in turn is in response to the failure
of educational change despite the need to post-industrialize the education system. Jurisdictional
leaders have often been challenged with creating a school system instead of a system of schools.
Based upon school leader responses, RVS appears to have become a school system aligned b y
purpose and clarity of role, operating as a team during the 4-year study period, but not all leaders
necessarily identified the same drivers for that success, or at least attributed an equal degree of
emphasis. The responses to the other four themes were referenced relatively consistently b y both
school and district leaders.
Critique. In 2013, the College of Alberta School Superintendents published the only
research-based critique of RVS in relation to the research period. The college commissioned
research about the 12 dimensions of school leadership success. These 12 dimensions are
110
designed to be the competency-based rubric for senior leaders’ performance. RVS was one of
two districts in Alberta evaluated on its application of 21st century learning. The research was
conducted in 2011, which aligns with the end of my research, and was published in 2012.
Although a ver y complimentary bod y of research overall, researchers found that classroom
teachers were not as familiar as school and district leaders with 21st century learning and were
not as proficient with the embedded use of technology in regular classroom learning as the
researchers had anticipated (Friesen & Lock, 2012). This is a surprising finding given that 2011
marked the end of the first district 3YP entitled Engaging the 21st Century Learner (RVS, 2008).
This finding is in direct alignment with espoused theories and theories of action (Argyris & Schön, 1978). The district clearly had espoused theories of transforming into a 21st century
learning organization but may have lacked the concrete theories of action that would have
translated into clear steps at the most basic level in education systems—the interface between
teachers and students. Said another way, until teachers in the district transform practice in
classrooms and student learning experiences are meaningfully and concretely dissimilar to the
past century of educational practice, transformative change has not occurred. This critique of the
district is simply that perhaps the visually appealing representations of district work and talk at
the senior level was just that, and transformation was indeed not occurring because teachers had
not demonstrated changed practice.
In 2011, the ATA released its study of teachers and administrators in RVS entitled
Transforming Our Future Together. In the foreword, Andy Hargreaves noted that in general, the
district appears to be a good place for teachers to work. He also referenced Fullan’s (2011) work
outlining the wrong drivers for change and then correspondingly described technology as a
wrong driver. Hargreaves (as cited in ATA, 2011b) appears to be indicating that the district was
111
focused on new technologies, and that was the district’s understanding of 21st century learning.
Drawing from Sarason (1993), Hargreaves noted the “predictable failure of educational reform”
(as cited in ATA, 2011b, foreword) after explaining that districts that pursue technology
integration fail to consider workload, work–life balance, and the lack of time and support for
teachers.
The ATA’s (2011b) survey was conducted b y ATA local 35 and had approximately 40%
of the total number of teachers employed participate, including substitute teachers and school
administrators. Three percent of the respondents were school principals. In general, its critique is
grounded on workload and work-related stress as a result of the district’s aggressive vision of
transformation. A consistent theme throughout its report is that technology is not a panacea;
modernizing the system and equipping it with contemporary tools will not necessary help
students and is not helping teachers manage their roles.
The ATA appropriately argued that the work of the district should be grounded in what is
best for students. It is interesting to note here that my participants (randomly sampled, not open
survey participants) did not reference technology as a driver for change; they referenced six other
characteristics, and four of them very strongl y. This gap ma y be best articulated by the fact that
district leaders and school leaders were interviewed for this research, yet mostly teachers and
substitute teachers completed the ATA survey. Nevertheless, this critique appeared to resonate
with some at the time the first 3YP was concluding and therefore at the end of this research.
Summary of Findings
Two large-scale sets of quantitative data appear to validate that significant change was
occurring within the district. The essential conditions for large-scale transformation appear to fall
within six key areas: strategic plan, learning, collaboration, trust, communication, and
112
accountability. The 24 open-ended interview responses were rich in content yet consistently
aligned with one another. Participants’ descriptions revealed remarkable similarity for a cohort
of leaders. Most significant was the alignment and clarity with which school principals described
their work within the system and what it had meant to them in terms of their leadership practice
and student learning experiences.
This case study, however, was not without critique. Not all results showed significant
improvement, not all teachers were demonstrating signs of transformed practice, and a
significant portion of teachers expressed that they felt overwhelmed with the work. Further, there
is evidence to suggest that teaching practice was not truly changing across the system but in
small pockets of innovation.
113
Chapter 5: Analysis and Interpretation of Findings
The purpose of this study was to identify the characteristics of large-scale organizational
transformation as described by leaders within the organization. This research inquiry guided the
analytical framework through which I viewed the data. In this chapter I discuss the qualitative
findings reported in Chapter 4. I analyze and cross-reference with other research the six
characteristics of large-scale organizational change identified by participants. Ultimately, I hope
to provide meaning to the research through independent examination of the characteristics and
the holistic change efforts in the district.
Collaborative Creation of a Strategic Plan Was Both Clarifying and Empowering
The strategic plan built by a large group of organizational stakeholders was referenced
consistently as important for alignment across the jurisdiction. Individual leaders felt that they
had ownership and a direct connection to the strategic direction of the larger organization, which
was a shift from being focused on school goals in isolation. Cocreating the plan fostered an
understanding of system direction and closed the articulation gap between large-scale
organizational goals and local priorities (Fullan, 2009b). Frequently, organizations invest into the
creation of strategic plans but do not implement them. This creates organizational complacency
and skepticism among stakeholders of planning exercises. Among several characteristics,
Hargreaves and Fink (2006) have argued for intelligent accountability to accompany an y
strategic planning for education organizations. The district produced quarterly reports aligned
with the strategic plan for board information and public disclosure (RVS, 2011). Further, there is
also evidence that the strategic plan initiatives consistently tabled with the board, the principals
reporting progress on 3YP goals semi-annually, and the RVS accountability pillar introduced to
114
survey stakeholders as a measure of performance on 3YP initiatives all served to ensure
implementation of the strategic plan as paramount to the district (RVS, 2011).
In addition to cocreation of a system-wide strategic plan, a separate yet equally impactful
organizational change characteristic identified by the participants was the fact the plan formed
the basis for the school educational plans. While a collaboratively built plan created system
ownership, system-wide implementation through school education plan templates consistent with
the goals and outcomes of the jurisdictional plan put all schools in direct alignment to the
system. Jurisdictional strategies were informative to schools as they identified the system-level
support to be provided (e.g., technology infrastructure changes) and local autonomy was
empowered through locally derived strategies in school education plans.
In effect, school principals followed the same process in the spring of 2008, when the
draft district plan was created, by engaging stakeholders at the school level to develop local
strategies for their specific learning environment. This created local ownership of the school
education plans while directly aligning them to the jurisdiction. This approach is widely
supported in the literature for whole-system change (Darling-Hammond, 2009; Fullan, 2003;
Waters & Marzano, 2006) as a departure from earlier notions of decentralization and SBDM.
Leaving transformational change to individual schools to accomplish alone will not yield lasting,
cultural change, nor will dictums from the top. A skillful blend is required.
School principal participants did note, however, that this was a fundamental shift in
practice. Experienced principals noted that they initially struggled with the loss of local
autonomy. In the past, the jurisdiction created a 3YP consistent with the requirements of Alberta
Education but little was known at the school level about this plan. SL 4 explained:
115
So just on a very simple level—just pulling together to have goals that are meaningful and
useful at a school level—. . . I appreciate the involvement that schools now have, because
when I first started this as an administrator in Rocky View it was a ver y detached process.
They hired outside consultants to come in and administer it and do the goals. So, it was
very much a paper exercise because it was absolutely meaningless, and I remember being
around during those times and even the phrasing, the wording of the goals—it was so
artificial. It was an exercise, and we did it. We did as well as could be expected, and
we were expected to do it. But in terms of it being a meaningful thing, it was not that at
all. (Mbrown, SL 4, 2013)
In the school district, and not unlike other jurisdictions, 3YPs had little emphasis or
importance at the school level. This was the result of both a lack of staff involvement in plan
development and implementation, and an emphasis on local autonomy, leading to a lack of
alignment between district plans and school education plans. The feeling of loss of local control
was a significant phenomenon that lasted two full planning years before systemic planning
became embedded as system practice and expectation (RVS, 2011). Identifying the school as the
primary unit of improvement in education systems requires the redistribution of decision-making
authority as the major vehicle to stimulating improvements (Malen, Ogawa, & Kranz, 1990).
This is in direct contrast to Elmore et al. (2006), who concluded that leaving the issue of school
improvement to each school does not work. A bottoms-up approach, referenced in this research
and a philosophy aligned to SBDM, is therefore not optimal. The contrast is really about reform
eras (mid-1980s to mid-1990s reform vs. new-age reform). Nevertheless, this critique remained
for the first 3 years of the study period.
116
The belief in SBDM was so pervasive in Alberta that Alberta Education created a SBDM
manual for school boards, superintendents, and business officials (Alberta Education, 1994). In
general, SBDM was a paradigm of district operations that decentralized virtually all functions
and resources possible. It is underpinned by a free market philosophy that competition amongst
schools for students within the same district will make all schools better, and will therefore make
the overall district better. This paradigm was direct result of reform movements in the early to
mid-1980s, after the first wave in the early 1960s (A. Taylor, 2001) that brought a marketization
of education ethos as a driver for system improvement.
There was no greater example of this organizational belief in districts across North
America than in Alberta’s own Edmonton Public School Board (EPSB). Led by then
superintendent Dr. Michael Strembitsky, EPSB created a highl y decentralized operational
structure of chargebacks for central services. Schools were given 98% of the jurisdictional
funding with a small amount retained for central services required by legislation (e.g., board of
trustees, superintendent, secretary-treasurer). Virtually all other functions were provided through
chargeback funding aggregated from school principals who wanted a central service (O’Neill &
Strembitsky, 1995). Through this model, if principals saw value in purchasing central
communications services, for example, the revenue generated b y charging schools for the service
became the budget for those services and expanded if there was increased demand. Conversely,
services deemed to have little value generated little revenue from schools, and that central
service was soon eliminated. By example, the number of central office communications staff in
EPSB diminished by 50% from 1985 to 1989 following the launch into SBDM (EPSB, 1992).
Much like the free market where the customer decides which companies succeed and which ones
117
fail, EPSB established a school district operational model that epitomized SBDM and local
autonomy.
In direct contrast to EPSB in the 1980s is the move to centralizing governance over the
last two decades. Galway and Wiens (2013) have argued that as governments have centralized
control over education, there has been a corresponding decline in local governance and
autonomy. This sends a powerful message that school boards have run their course and are no
longer a relevant form of governance of education systems. Superintendents, in turn, have
ironically reacted to centralized control over education by government authorities in the same
manner as principals argued against centralized control over education by their central offices.
This move toward centralization, both by governments and districts, is in response to the third
wave of excellence in education, calling for a transformation and abandonment of the status quo.
A fourth way of change in education calls for democratization of all stakeholders, most
importantly students, and most notably within its first pillar of creating an inspiring and inclusive
vision (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009). A new constructivist paradigm emerged in approximately
2000 amongst industrialized nations (Friesen, 2010) with the realization that strong organizational
visions and mandates are the only wa y to transform old structures to new. SBDM, therefore,
either at the school level within districts, or at the district level within government- operated
systems, is no longer feasible for a transformed system requiring a consistent and common
articulation of the new reality within education (Dufour, 2007). This belief was also corroborated
by Fullan (2013), who argued for alignment with, and leadership from, the centre in reference to
government authorities. No longer can the type of system reform needed be left up
to innovative groups within various schools in a district (Fullan, 2013, p. 25).
118
A collaboratively built and universally administered strategic plan therefore creates an
essential tension between centralized control and local autonomy. Organizational stakeholders,
by being enlisted into the strategic plan development process, become passionate and committed
to not only the outcome but also the actualization of recommendations. This requires many of the
same stakeholders, embedded in schools, to champion what looks like a centralized and not a
school vision once the district strategic plan is put in place. Participants were clear that initially
this change was difficult to understand and work with, but over time it became clear in relation to
their work as a team of leaders within the organization. Participants consistently referenced the
fact that the district as an organization had a clear vision, aligned to Alberta Education, and that
many staff were working toward that vision. This was a unique experience for them.
Building Staff Capacity Through a New Professional Learning Framework Was Integral to Strengthening System Capacity
With the launch of the first collaboratively built 3YP in 2008, the Board of Trustees
recognized that an investment into developing professional capacity was critical to impact
student learning success. Goal 3 of the 2008–2011 strategic plan, entitled “Engaging the 21st
Century Learner,” called for professional learning to be “ongoing, embedded, and systematic”
(RVS, 2008, p. 15). As the plan began to take shape, most critically after the group stakeholder
(200 participants) meeting held in February 2008, an internal working group of school and
system leaders was formed to address the emerging need for a different professional
development structure (RVS, 2008). As with many school districts at the time and even today,
the district had five school-based professional development days. Principals organized
professional development with teachers and support staff within their school. One could argue
that this was a remnant of a market force of decentralization within educational structures, or of
119
the historical scientific management principle of the manager training the worker. Regardless,
the working group quickly determined that more time for learning would require a major
overhaul, and that teachers, support staff, and school leaders needed to work with other district
staff in other schools in order to learn and build capacity together in a more accelerated way b y
capturing best practices and learning together (RVS, 2008). Further, the internal working group
recommended professional autonomy b y building an opportunity for professional learning
aligned to gaps identified by employees themselves. These would be aligned to the vision of the
school and in turn aligned to the vision of the district.
School and district leaders consistently referenced the new professional learning structure
as integral to both system and school success. With the shift from five days of professional
development to 10 days of professional learning, staff slowly began to embrace the notion that
they were all learners. As previously noted, approximately 160 communities of practice operated
each year for the 3-year period of the initial strategic plan (RVS, 2011). A teacher or support
staff member established each community b y filling out an online template articulating an
essential question or questions and then inviting others to join. The strategic plan, as identified
by participants, provided a clear vision, and from this starting point, employees could identify
areas of growth in their professional practice needed to carry out the vision, in a manner that was
empowering. Individuals decided if they wanted to start a community or join one that was of
interest to them. The only requirement of all involved, including central staff, the executive team,
and the board of trustees, was that they were expected to build capacity to enable the type of
change outlined in the strategic plan (RVS, 2011). Participants also noted that other structures
were established for them to engage in operations of the district, and ultimately learn. Working
committees made up of principals, principal meetings that shifted to a capacity-building focus,
120
and small-group sharing meetings held twice a year between principals were all opportunities for
them to learn (RVS, 2011).
This new structure was not without criticism. Parents and community members were
initially upset with five more school days that their children were not in school (RVS, 2009).
Teachers, although appreciative of the time to learn, were certainly aware that the overall
instructional commitment in hours remained the same, and therefore each instructional day was a
little longer. Within the larger teacher welfare and working conditions perspective of the ATA,
this was not seen as a positive move. The ATA (2011a) authored the most significant critique
overall about the culture and working conditions of the district (the only known external written
critique) with its Transforming Our Future Together document. Speculation within the district
was that it was released deliberately in advance of upcoming negotiations of a new collective
agreement, especially given its recommendations were for the district to find ways to relieve the
intensification of teacher work and get more embedded time for collaboration and preparation
time. Only one other district in the province of Alberta was targeted with this survey. In RVS,
over 500 teachers and support staff out of 1,250 participated in the survey. Overall, teachers
wanted more time to learn about the increasing demands of their role and work on preparation
and administrative tasks.
Learning communities are widely supported in the literature. Professional learning
communities, where teachers work collaboratively on professional goals, were championed as a
means to empower professionals to undertake lasting change (Dufour & Eaker, 1998).
Professional learning communities can have significant impact on changing a school culture and
driving organizational results for students (Dufour, Eaker, & Dufour, 2008). Communities of
practice, first coined by Lave and Wenger (1991) to describe individuals organizing based upon
121
common interests, have been situated in an educational context in a slightly different manner than
professional learning communities. Communities of practice in education involve professionals
organizing to learn from one another but the topic or inquiry is derived b y the professionals
themselves. Professional learning communities are used to organize teachers within schools or
from across schools to work toward specific goals or initiatives of the school. Communities of
practice require a greater extension of trust to professionals to determine the areas they wish to
pursue within their own professional growth to augment their practice (Wenger, 2011).
This collaborative learning model bringing peers together in a high-trust environment is
fundamental not only to define theories of action (Argyris & Schön, 1978), but also to allow
teachers to identify the difference in their practice from espoused theories of action to theories in
use. In other words, these communities form the basis for reflection upon teaching practice.
Theories in use often typify the previously described power-over structures in the classroom, the
prevailing societal norm that translates into the most common actual praxis of teaching in
classrooms. In a highl y collaborative and trusting environment that embraces shared leadership,
theories of action can foster double-loop learning that results in organizations changing norms,
policies, and objectives. In contrast, a single-loop learning system takes for granted the strategies
and frameworks of the organization and thereby perpetuates the status quo. Double-loop learning
within an organization may ultimately lead to organizational change. This is an important context
for this finding, and in fact the findings of collaborative leadership practice and high trust
environments.
The participants were clear: A paradigmatic shift in century-old practice required
opportunities for teachers and other staff to discuss, innovate, and create new understandings and
122
competencies. Teachers working within communities with other teachers from different schools
accelerated this development. Although prima facie very obvious, schools traditionally have
been very insular, including the competency development of their staff. A competition between
schools for students meant retaining school “trade secrets” tight within each school’s culture.
Transforming teaching practice required a safe space for teachers and a desire to learn how to
change practice from traditional methods. Further, this structure was in response to the district
becoming a learning organization, whereby all staff were encouraged and supported to be
learners alongside students. This required the organizational culture to become one based on
trust.
Collaborative Structures and Distributed Leadership Fostered a Leadership Team Striving
for Collective Impact
With the launch of year 1 of the plan in August of 2008, the district established
superintendent working committees. Made up of volunteer principals and assistant principals, the
committees focused on specific core functions of the organization, including human resources,
professional learning, and communications. Each committee self-selected a chair and led the
group to work through a mandate provided by the senior executive team. A senior leader was
assigned to work with each committee. Respondents commented that they felt very much
empowered to own the future state of learning within the organization. Further, they frequently
commented that they were better instructional leaders within their own buildings. Work was
completed through a Moodle page, which captured a digital workflow and allowed for generative
contributions any time by group members (RVS, 2011).
In addition to these working committees, three other collaborative structures were
introduced. Principal and assistant principal meetings were changed to become leadership team
123
meetings five days per year. Instead of meeting b y level and listening to senior executive reports,
principals worked together as a group in a generative manner to build system leadership
capacity. Information dissemination was more effectively fulfilled through an augmented
communications team and interactive website. The second half of the full-day meetings saw
school leaders meet by level to discuss opportunities to tackle common challenges and to share
best practices (RVS, 2011).
Lastl y, early in the 2008–2009 school year, the district established small-group sharing
meetings. Organized b y area initially, and then by education plan initiatives, school leaders came
together twice a year for half a day to share with one another the intricate and powerful practices
instilled in their school learning community (RVS, 2012). It was an opportunity for school
leaders to talk proudly about their work but also pose questions to the group. The schools in the
district began to shift to system thinking, whereb y individuals in leadership positions were
emotionally and cognitively invested into the success of other schools in the system, not just
their own.
The collaborative structures established at the start of implementing the new vision were
critical to the district’s success for many reasons. First, by opening up the district to generative
decision-making operations, people felt that they were collectively responsible for the
implementation of the strategic plan, which also had wide ownership. Employees were engaged
in realizing a system-wide vision that seasoned principals in the district had not previously
experienced (CL 6, S L 9, SL 4, and S L 11, 2013). The collaborative structures therefore brought
a collective effort toward organizational goals instead of the traditional top-down direction,
which was the case in the district prior to the 2008 strategic plan, when goals were often
designed for compliance with Alberta Education not for engagement of employees.
124
Second, by embracing a collaborative approach to operational decisions and cocreating
the direction, these structures began to foster an ethos of trust within the organization. School
and district leaders needed to believe they could take risks, to think and act innovatively and
creatively, without fear of hierarchical consequences and discipline. And finally, school and
district leaders became exemplars by modelling an alternative approach to operate a school
system. School leaders now expected teachers to work the same way, both within their school
assignment and across schools in the district. Participants clearly stated that their teachers felt
they had a tremendous weight lifted off of their shoulders, in reference to organizational
processes and controls, and teachers began to embrace opportunities for creativity (S L 4, S L 6,
SL 12, 2013). In short, teachers began to work the way the district expected students to be able to
work within classrooms. And by watching senior leaders behave the same way, there was a
through-line from superintendent practice to student learning practice. All leaders were
challenged to become instructional leaders and correspondingly all staff were challenged to
become instructional experts, trying new methods and centering practices on the unique needs of
each learner. The district was becoming a learning organization, whereby everybod y was a
learner, and research and innovation became part of everyda y business (RVS, 2012).
As with all findings of this research, collaboration was criticized. The overwhelming
nature of the district plan, founded on the belief that change must be systemic and not
incremental, resulted in staff who did not have time to collaborate, or felt extra stress if they did.
This was an unintended consequence of the district’s work (RVS, 2011). Further, aside from the
communities of practice that teachers and administrators could join, teachers were not invited to
participate in the collaborative decision-making structures established for school and central
leaders. The ATA local #35 (Rocky View teachers’ local chapter of the ATA) was highl y critical
125
of this omission. Lastly, Transforming Our Future Together (ATA, 2011b) overall reported a
high level of frustration and disdain for senior leadership and the board, which was unfortunate.
It appears that school and district leaders’ identification of collaboration as a positive change
characteristic was not lived by teachers in schools. This frustration that senior leaders did not
seem to understand or care about the pressure that teachers felt impacts the validity of both this
finding and the next one on trust.
Leadership Behaviour Was Focused on Building Trust
Trust emerged as the fourth strong relation to large-scale reform in the district.
Respondents clearly and consistently referenced their opportunity to collaborate through multiple
structures as a means to feeling empowered, valued, and engaged in their work, with a correlated
outcome of building organizational and relational trust within the district. Although dichotomous
in nature, organizations are either in a trust tax (low trust) or trust dividend (high trust) situation
(Covey, 2006). Organizations with high trust are paid the dividend of fast decision-making,
engagement, empowerment, and innovation, leading to efficiencies and effectiveness.
Organizations with low trust are taxed with long and difficult approval processes, staff
disengagement, a lack of community, and diminished interest in interpersonal and intra-
organizational good (Cosner, 2009). This manifests itself in cliques of adults in schools
ironically akin to student behaviour that the same adults try to erode.
I’ve told this to him [the superintendent] many times. . . . You gave us permission to step
outside of the box, to think differently. Whereas in the past, you just wouldn’t have gone
there. There was no hope, no encouragement, too much at stake. It was all about keeping
your cards close to your chest—not only to sta y safe but to survive, because to step
outside of the box was suicidal. (Genieve, SL 8, 2013)
126
SL 3 raises an important trust dividend attribute that was consistent with responses in
relation to innovation. An organization with high levels of trust unlocks the potential for
employees to think innovatively and take risks. Cultures of low trust curtail employees from
innovative thoughts and action because of fear of failure and consequences. Trust therefore is an
essential human condition required for two or more people to work together in a supportive and
innovative manner. Another participant explained it this way:
So, leadership is a huge, huge piece and that comes right down from the top. If principals
aren’t in the position where they feel they can take a risk make mistakes, then their
teachers aren’t going to be there. Prior to this I was in a school division where it was very
much, “Don’t you dare make a mistake or you’re in trouble.” (Joan, SL 10, 2013).
Organizations as a matter of general practice should be attentive to organizational and
relational trust. From the participants’ perspectives, however, it is a fundamental characteristic of
large-scale transformation as a driver for innovation and risk-taking. Trust is interrelated to risk
in that when subordinates take risks, and potentially fail, the response of a superordinate must be
supportive (Curral & Judge, 1995; Tschannen-Moran & Ho y, 2000). RVS undoubtedly was
taking risks and challenging prevailing paradigms about education. All but two participants
responded clearly that they felt trusted to take risks in their daily roles.
However, as with the collaborative structures finding, the ATA (2011) survey clearly
identified systemic issues in the organization and a feeling of alienation by teachers. By
extension, because district decision-makers did not address teachers’ concerns in relation to
workload or class size, many of the 550 survey respondents felt they were not trusted. The
solutions would have obviously been more complicated than simply listening. Resources, which
are always scarce in organizations, would have needed to be realigned to work condition
127
priorities. Most important, if all concerns in the ATA survey, which was conducted without the
district’s knowledge, had been addressed, the history of education reform and resistance to
change would suggest that a new set of concerns with district operations would quickly emerge.
Participants consistently talked about an emerging ethos of trust within the district. They
referenced that trust was an outcome of senior leaders collaborating with staff, especially school
leaders, to cocreate the path toward achieving the goals outlined in the strategic plan. This was
not without the aforementioned critique that the second-order change attempt manifested
increased workloads, and collaboration was seen to compound demands on leaders’ time.
Ironicall y, some participants referenced workload, which would appear to indicate that directions
should just be provided, which in turn would be followed with a critique that the organization
was driven top-down. From this perspective, it is hard to determine what the central and school
leaders could have done that would have been universally accepted.
Accountability Was Frequently Identified as a Driver for Organizational Change
With the launch of the new collaboratively built strategic plan, senior leaders within the
district, including the board of trustees, understood that actions had to be measured. The belief
instilled into the system, in relation to collaboration and high trust was that stakeholders needed
to perpetually conduct an analysis of progress in relation to stated goals, outcomes, strategies,
and measures (RVS, 2009). Measures and consistent progress reports were needed for the
strategic plan to live beyond its words. In order for this belief to be embraced throughout the
system, there needed to be high trust in that people knew they were being monitored to improve
learning for students, not to receive disciplinary consequences. Reactions of senior leaders early
in this shift were critical. They had to be largel y nurturing and supportive. Collaborative
128
structures provided a framework to discuss results and alter action plans if needed. In short,
accountability became a means to achieving group goals and not something to be feared.
All strategies articulated in year 1 of the strategic plan had an action plan that outlined the
responsible person(s) or committee, the action steps to be undertaken, the measures, and a budget
line if required (RVS, 2011). As superintendent, I initially reported at each public board meeting
on the progress of these action plans. This cadence of reporting shifted to quarterly in years 2 and
3 of the plan.
During the fall of 2008, an independent consulting company was contracted to work with
RVS to design surve y questions and ultimately conduct a survey each spring as a measure of
system progress. This survey was opened up to all students in Grades 4 to 12, all parents, and all
employees. In year 1, over 3,500 people completed the survey, and b y year 3, over 11,000 people
provided survey feedback. Consistently, approximately 1,000 of the 2,000 employees
participated, and the remainder of respondents were split between students and parents. These
results, beginning in the spring of 2009 and each spring thereafter, formed a critical qualitative
assessment of what the district was excelling at and what it needed to improve. A presentation
was made to the Board of Trustees, and they provided direction for the upcoming year. The
survey was consistently brought back to the board table as a reference, as at all of the
collaborative working group sessions. Overall, the district maintained results over the 3-year
implementation period in 6 of 17 categories while improving in the remaining 11 measures. This
result is interesting given that the number of participants in year 3 was almost four times that of
year 1.
In Alberta, a very similar survey is conducted on the health of the system each year.
Called the accountability survey, students, parents, and teachers in Grades 4, 7, and 10 are
129
invited to participate. An accountability pillar is produced each spring for each district, and each
school within each district. There are nine survey-based measures. The remaining seven results-
based measures include exam results, dropout rates, and scholarship rates. These data, along with
RVS survey data, formed an annual picture of areas of strength and areas for improvement.
School leaders were invited to annual results review meetings each spring. Armed with
jurisdictional data sets and individual school data, the meetings were focused conversations
regarding how well the specific learning community was doing relative to its local strategies. At
first leaders were apprehensive but over time came to realize that this was a professional
conversation about what to maintain as strengths and how to improve in areas that may be weak.
Most powerfully, as referenced by a number of respondents, was that the conversation was often
focused on how the central leaders could help and how the organization could provide support.
These meetings were referenced as the critical process that embedded a team approach to system
improvement. It had become a we attitude, not an us vs. them attitude (RVS, 2011).
With the launch of the 3YP, an announcement was communicated of embracing Jim
Collins’ (2001) work, Good to Great. Most critical was embracing openness and transparency in
all that the system did. All accountability reports were posted on a newly designed website open
for the entire world to see. There was a deliberate attempt to involve parents and community
members in the system and engage them in performance-related conversations.
Overall, questions in both APORI and the RVS survey that asked participants to reflect on
some element of the district culture improved or remained at a high level in the majority of cases,
which indicates the culture was improving. Seven of the 16 APORI measures are cultural
assessments (e.g., the safe and caring APORI measure is derived from a set of questions asked of
student, parent, and teacher survey participants of the degree to which the environment in which
130
they learn, their child learns, or they teach is safe and caring), and all 13 of the RVS survey
measures are of the culture of the organization. However, when these two data sets were framed
as accountability structures, as described by the district, school leaders did not identify with it
being an impactful change characteristic. Not only did the majority of participants choose to omit
identifying accountability as a characteristic for macro-level change, researchers have supported
this omission. Fullan (2011) identified accountability as one of the wrong drivers for system
reform, and Hargreaves (2011) articulated that building professional instructional practice, not
high stakes testing, is foundational to the path of reform.
To further complicate the analysis, other researchers believe accountability structures are
critical to system-level reform (Dufour, 2007; Mourshed et al., 2010; Waters & Marzano, 2006).
The potential reason for such a weak response amongst participants, including senior leaders of
the district, perhaps lies within the dynamic of teachers unions. The ATA (2011) survey
document referenced previously cited Fullan’s (2011) wrong drivers of change in relation to
accountability and technology. The ATA is of the strong belief, as other unions across North
America, that accountability, at least the way it has been used, creates a chill amongst teachers
and principals. Accountability in relation to reporting and progressing toward the non-negotiable
goals (Waters & Marzano, 2006) of the district should be an action of universal support.
Communications Were Identified as Important for Cultural Change
Respondents cited that communication processes were changed in the district. School and
district leaders were given strong communications support but policies and processes were put in
place that also curtailed school autonomy. The Board of Trustees communicated openly and
transparently and with a consistent message. As with any change of the second-order,
stakeholders question the change imperative. Organizations need to ensure communication
131
processes are consistent and aligned to strategic direction. This inevitably requires a limitation of
free speech within organizations in relation to the outward voice of the system, especially with
media. The natural critique that emerges is that individuals are not free to express to media what
isn’t working. If collaborative structures are not established, coupled with high trust, then
individuals do not have an outlet within the organization either.
RVS provided for internal constructive feedback mechanisms through surveys, discussion
boards, and site-based problem-solving conversations. The expectation was that positive
accomplishments could be shared by an yone but not all individuals could conduct media
interviews about challenges. This appears to be contrary to openness and transparency, yet this
was accomplished through publishing and communicating district challenges in a controlled
manner. For example, in 2010, when Alberta Education produced separate First Nations, Metis,
and Inuit (FNMI) APORI results, RVS posted them with all other results. In this first year of the
production of this data, RVS was the only district in the province to do so (Alberta Education,
2011b).
Although this controlled approach may appear offensive, both public and private
organizations demonstrate little evidence that any employee can do media interviews at any time.
By example, a front-line worker in the oil and gas industry, which is a major industry in Alberta,
does not appear on the front page of local papers complaining about the processes of the
company he or she works for. The critical distinction here is whether organizations have
mechanisms for critiques to surface and be dealt with. This in turn requires high trust and
leadership functions that encourage feedback from front-line workers without disciplinary
actions. RVS engaged with the public in an open manner and streamlined processes that
132
ultimately saved scarce resources (e.g., central coordination of advertising positions), yet was not
without an ongoing critique of taking authority away from school leaders.
A new website was built and launched with the 3YP (RVS, 2008). It had both public and
internal components. All information that schools or the district communicated were via system
and school websites. Website design across the 40 schools was consistent, with some local
content in alignment to the unique context.
District leaders, and school leaders less so, referenced the communication function during
the initial 3YP (2008–2011) as integral to its success. The 3YP challenged a number of
assumptions about education:
1. Teaching practice was static, predominantly unidirectional, and a command
performance;
2. Learning was for students only, as adults already new best;
3. Learning spaces were static;
4. Time for learning was fixed;
5. Contemporary digital devices wouldn’t assist, accelerate, or differentiate learning;
6. All children are equal and will be taught the same unless coded as a special needs
learner;
7. Leadership was command centred and authoritarian;
8. Communities were informed;
9. Quality teaching came as a result of improved working conditions; and
10. Someone in a “high-ranking” position in the organization would tell everyone what to
do and what a transformed system looked like.
133
These assumptions about teaching and learning, and about organizational structure and
behaviour, were being challenged. As previously stated, much of educational practice is a result
of an industrial-style education system built to produce factory workers over century ago. This
construct of a free education for all was subsequently influenced b y the teachings of F. Ta ylor
(1911/1967) and his principles of scientific management to order, structure, and establish routine
to a relatively new enterprise. Subject disciplines were in different buildings; desks were in rows;
students were punished for being tard y, absent, not putting up hands, or talking aloud; time on
task was codified to outputs; funding was based upon results; reward systems were embedded to
condition students; and assessment was based upon individual performance and regurgitation.
Further, parents and community members had all experienced a traditional, industrial style of
teaching and learning, which formed their epistemology of education. And last, to holistically
describe the educational transformation challenge, educators and teaching preparatory
institutions practiced teaching and prepared new teachers respectively based upon traditional
views of what learning was to look like in classrooms and schools.
The communications function therefore had to use more than updated tools such new
websites and social media. Both internal and external communications had to focus on the role of
building capacity for change. And in the first 3YP, where the status quo was being challenged in
all of its facets, participants noted that the message had to be first and foremost about describing
the need for change. This commitment to relentlessly articulate the strategic plan was critical to
maintain direction. Many people, including employees, parents, and community, had to be
shown what the state of education could look like, and why it would be better for students. And
returning to the finding of a collaboratively built plan, it was also very important to communicate
that the mandate came from a cross-section of stakeholders, the most vocal of which in regard to
134
changing education to meet the needs of students and employers in the 21st century were parents.
A parent at the 3-year planning consultations said, “We need our kids to be taught in a wa y
consistent with the way we work today, and what is relevant to them and the world today” RVS,
2008).
As with the other findings, communications in the midst of macro-level reform were
identified as a critical function within impactful district leadership practices. This study,
however, did not result in participants consistently identifying communications as integral to
system transformation. It appears that what started with great enthusiasm in 2007 and 2008
became frustration further along in the implementation years (ATA, 2011). This was
compounded, at least initially, b y the resistance of school leaders toward diminished local
autonomy with respect to communication functions. Despite the research and the work done in
communications, district and school leaders placed a lesser degree of emphasis on this function
as a necessary characteristic of macro-level change.
Categorization of Organizational Change
Mourshed et al. (2010) proposed four categories of systemic change, as presented in
Chapter 2. Given the socioeconomic conditions in Canada, symbolized by a high average wage
and high national GDP/capita, public health care, strong and stable governments, stable policing
and correctional systems, and public education (K–12), it is plausible that most Canadian
education jurisdictions, autonomous from the federal government, are in the good to great
categor y (Mourshed et al., 2010). In Alberta, specific to this study, programs are in place for new
teachers and principals to successfully transition into the profession, pedagogy is a perpetual
focus within the province, and most school boards employ SBDM. In RVS, all of these
characteristics were in place in 2007 at the start of this study.
135
To transform from great to excellent, Mourshed et al. (2010) proposed three major
interventions: (a) systems move toward establishing professional learning communities to raise
the calibre of instruction, (b) provide relief for teachers through administrative and support staff
to allow for a focus on teaching and learning, and (c) establish system-sponsored innovation
across schools. Further, as system performance rises, accountability shifts from the centre to
include school and teacher self-evaluation. Seventy-five percent of all interventions by the
system are to improve teaching and learning practices; of these, one quarter are focused on
professional learning and only 15 percent are focused on accountability. Most important,
Mourshed et al. found that sustaining change was based upon changing the culture of the system.
RVS showed signs of a great to excellence shift in at least two of the three major
interventions. First, a systematic professional learning network, where traditionally insular
teachers and schools began working together across school and subject discipline boundaries, is
evidence of the first intervention of raising the calibre of teaching in the district. The fact that the
communities of practice were based upon professional autonomy further supports this assertion.
Second, sharing between schools and driving for innovation in cohorts and across the district is
evidence that the third intervention (establishing system-sponsored innovation) was at least
starting in the district. There was no evidence that interventions were put in place to support
classroom teachers with workload; in fact, the opposite may have occurred. Although the district
embedded learning coaches to work with teachers in schools, teachers reported feeling their
workload had exponentially increased.
Mourshed et al. (2010) also identified collaborative practice as foundational to the great
to excellent categorization, which puts SBDM on a maturity continuum and has individuals
thinking as a team. This was certainly present in the district and was perhaps the most impactful
136
of findings. Lastl y, evidence exists that Mourshed et al.’s proposal of five steps to improvement,
described as setting non-negotiable goals, putting capable people in key positions, engaging with
stakeholders, resourcing non-negotiable goals, and posting early wins, were all present in the
district. Therefore, while it would be simple to categorize the district as moving from great to
excellent, it is more credible, based upon the evidence, to propose that the district was in the
early stages of transition to excellence with some key interventions to be sustained by embedding
them in the culture and introducing the missing intervention of augmented teacher support.
Reeves’ (2009) five-level network of organizational maturity, presented in Chapter 2, also has basic stages that were in place in RVS. Specifically, from the evidence reviewed, a level
one network existed in the augmented communication processes to improve internal and external
communication, and level two was in place through the addition of social media use across the
district. The district achieved a level three network through an intranet site that was co-opted
between five districts and Alberta Education as an opportunity to share resources and
collaborate. There was also a learner management system that housed communities of practice
and collaborative decision-making bodies’ workflows. A level network progression was
nonexistent in the research, as the district did not provide specific time for individuals to think
and create. Perhaps preparation time could be considered in that light, but given the pressure
teachers were under to create changed practice, little if any time would have been dedicated to
think and innovate.
A level five network, as neither constructed nor co-opted, is a self-directed network
across functions in the organization to learn and share together. This network is not to have
specific organizational goals so that authentic learning and inquiry can take place. Although the
district had a robust community of practice network established, it was for the purpose of
137
employees building capacity within their roles, and therefore had a specific organizational focus.
Through this analysis, RVS was operating at a level three network with a version of level five
networking in place.
Summary
This case-study research of RVS’ attempts to transform over a 4-year period examined
two sets of data to answer two questions. The first set of large-scale data was quantitative and
was analyzed to answer the question, “To what extent did large-scale transformational change
occur in the school district from 2007 to 2011? ” Although the data showed measurable
improvement in many areas, it is highly unlikely the system transformed by 2011. The positive
indicator was that something was changing in the district. The second set of data, designed to
answer the second research question about what essential characteristics of large-scale
transformational change were identified as impactful, was comprised of 24 open-ended
interviews with school and district leaders on their views of the characteristics that were enabling
change in the district. Four characteristics—strategic plan, capacity building through professional
learning, collaboration, and trust—were highly correlated (80% or higher response rate). Two
characteristics—accountability and communication—were weakly correlated to macro-level
change in the district. Transformative change must embrace all characteristics at the same time,
which is highly disconcerting to stakeholders, but otherwise change is incremental and
incoherent.
Although the first data set validated at least the rationale for the study, the characteristics
identified for large-scale change each have their own critique. Overall, the research is subject to
criticism from many angles. Individuals or groups opposed to school reform will be critical of
attempts to change and therefore of the actions leaders can take, especially when nested within a
138
21st-century learning context and a transformational context seeking to change fundamental
components of the system at the same time. This in turn draws in political leaders at all levels,
who become targets of public resistance and the call for a return to the familiar. Although the
RVS Board of Trustees was strongly supportive from the documents reviewed for this research,
political leaders in general require a lot of courage and commitment to change the status quo.
The ATA was especially critical of the district’s work in relation to allegedly using the wrong
drivers of change and increasing teacher workload. There was also evidence of turnover of
school and system leaders during the 4-year period that may or ma y not have been a result of the
direction the district was taking. It is also not clear whether this district transformed from a great
to excellent categorization or a level-five network as a system. Lastl y, although a high-
performing district in a high-performing jurisdiction of Alberta, this district was not at the
highest levels of performance in all categories.
What is clear from this research is that something was occurring. The assessment and
survey data identify the system was improving at a rate that is not consistent with large
organizations in a short period of time. This was at a time the district was moving awa y from
traditional teaching and learning processes yet using traditional forms of measuring system
improvement. Interview transcripts from May and June of 2013 describe an overwhelming
support for the changes in the district, summarized best as moving toward student-centric
practices and fostering 21st-century competencies. The interviews were conducted when I as
superintendent was leaving the district, which would further remove any barrier to speaking
freely about what had happened. Additionally, the district appears to have shown signs of
transitioning from great to excellent in at least in two of the three major interventions categorized
139
in Mourshed et al.’s (2010) model. The district also operated at least as a level three network
with a glimpse of level five in Reeve’s (2009) network maturity continuum.
Both Fullan (2009a) and Mourshed et al. (2010) explained that charismatic chief
executives actually do more harm than good by building up false hope and promise, only to leave
people disappointed and skeptical of future reform efforts. From the interview transcripts,
participants talked favourably about their superintendent and credited me with much of the
positive energy and change. Perhaps that is all that happened here: a somewhat charismatic
superintendent created a positive atmosphere of change but in the end, nothing really happened
at all. Although an easy critique to understand and espouse by observers outside of the system, or
by those resisting change to education for reasons discussed earlier, internal leaders within the
system were overwhelmingl y positive and resolute that change in the operation and outcomes of
the district had occurred.
The voices of 24 leadership practitioners in this district strongly supporting four large-
scale transformation characteristics is significant for all others courageous enough to embark on
this type of change, in this explosive field, at this moment in history. What is clear is that social
constructivism toward a new organization was present. There is little doubt amongst critics,
researchers, and teachers alike that a modernization of education must occur at some point in our
near future. Perhaps slow, incremental change, symbolic of previous reform efforts, is the only
way to really proceed with change. And then, perhaps, we will have another round of research
answering wh y the latest reform efforts in education failed, yet again.
140
Chapter 6: Summary and Implications
This study suggests that in order for transformational change to occur, a combination of
factors must be considered and implemented. From schools to districts and government
authorities, six characteristics were integral to transforming into a learning organization, while
four were highl y correlated. And it is certainly feasible that all organizations, education or
otherwise, private or public, could benefit from this study in consideration of the six crucial
organizational change characteristics.
A gap is in the literature in relation to large-scale organizational change. Not in relation to
the need for it, especially in education, but in relation to its lack of success aligned to “the blob,”
as described by Bennett (1987). The emergence of Hargreaves (2009) fourth way of change, and
the establishment of constructivism in classrooms early in the 21st century in relation to
pedagogy (Friesen, 2010), certainly created the need for change, as well as the why of change, in
education. But with a lack of evidence of successful large-scale change to turn to, just how could
this be done? Can district leaders lead real change in the complex education systems of 2015?
Reform done to the system, and not done by the system, has been the consistent recipe for failure
of education reform (Levin, 2010). If this research had been based on what not to do, the failure
of previous change efforts, and the inability of district leaders to have an impact, the null would
have been much more difficult to prove. There is a definite relationship between failed reform
and district leaders’ actions. Therefore, there is also a relationship between district leaders’
actions and successful large-scale reform.
This research is not without critique. Diminished SBDM opportunities in all of its forms
(e.g., finances, strategic plan, results reporting, communications, professional learning),
additional work to collaborate, and additional work to develop new leadership and teaching
141
practices all emerged as critiques over the 4-year study period. What did not emerge as a critique
from participants, but is the overarching critique, is that this district was not the highest
performing on APORI measures, specifically standardized tests, in the province after the initial
3YP (see Table 3). Many other districts surpassed RVS in overall average performance on PATs
and diploma exams in specific subjects, and especially in the categor y of excellence (above 80%
achievement).
However, this research focused on unpacking and describing RVS’ 4-year journey in
relation to the characteristics of large-scale change of the second order. As a sector embedded in
traditions with little systemic change over the past century, change magnified to significantly
change outputs, although there was evidence of improvement in this case study, would surely
take longer than 3 years. More important, however, is the dynamic of organizational change
within a larger organizational ecosystem that limits just how progressive one component can be.
Specific to this case study, a rich description of organizational change characteristics is present,
and is aligned to Alberta Education’s (2010) Inspiring Education, but the outputs continue to be
measured though 20th century assessment practices. Fifty percent weight on time-bound diploma
exams cannot fully capture the innovative and collaborative nature of classroom learning in a
21st-century model. Although not the purpose of this research, alternative assessment practices
should be examined and implemented to provide opportunities for district reform to continue to
foster 21st-century learning competencies.
This research focused on an average-sized Alberta district outside of a major
metropolitan area for some possible alternative ways to enable transformative change. Prior to
Albertan Education’s dialogue with Albertans from 2008–2010 to create a new vision for
education, RVS had formulated original work by way of its strategic plan entitled Engaging 21st
142
Century Learners (RVS, 2008). A phenomenon was emerging in the district about transforming
the system, and both internal and external cohorts were beginning to take notice of the work. The
dialogue with Albertans, which resulted in the Inspiring Education vision, made specific
reference to the work underway in RVS and a small number of other districts. Inspiring
Education (Alberta Education, 2010) and the first RVS strategic plan had many similar
attributes. And by teachers’ own admission, as expressed by school leader participants and
survey data, things were changing in the system significantly, and there was alignment to both
Inspiring Education and the Ministerial Order on Student Learning (Alberta Education, 2013). It
therefore was necessary to explore what happened in the system in the year leading up to its first
plan and for the 3 years of the first strategic plan. What was changing within the system? And
more important, how could large-scale change be implemented within a broader context?
Conclusions
The research included not only a review of quantifiable data to conclude the system was
indeed changing, but also comprehensive interviews with 12 school principals and 12 district
leaders, who randomly self-selected and were masked from the researcher. After concluding
from the quantifiable data that the system was changing, it was important to determine how. The
participant responses were easily codified into six thematic areas. These leaders identified what
they believed to be the most important actions of the organization: a collaboratively built,
universally administered vision; an investment in learning; the establishment of collaborative
structures and of high trust; and, to a lesser degree, accountability for results and consistent
communications. Each of these action areas is important to large-scale transformational change,
but independently their impact is insufficient (Fullan, 2013); organizations must engage in all
areas at the same time. Hopkins (2010) concurred that macro-level change across a jurisdiction is
143
not simply about identifying high performing characteristics, but understanding how the y
combine. Incremental change of one key organizational structure will ultimately add to the many
failed changed efforts of the 20th century. This adds to the disconcerting nature of
transformational change, especially in a sector that has thrived on incremental change for a
century.
Recommendations
My recommendations, explicitly stated, are as follows:
1. Big data informs progress, especially regarding organizational change, and should be
embraced;
2. Large-scale organizational change characteristics in research literature are aligned to
research in this case study, and is critical preparatory reading;
3. Embrace social constructivism to foster a new organizational culture;
4. As the characteristics of large-scale change are highly interdependent, initiate at the
same time;
5. Commence with a collaboratively-built strategic plan, establish adult learning
structures and expectations, establish collaborative structures to learn your way
forward, and focus on building trust individually and organizationally. Leaders should
be mindful about the establishment of accountability structures and strong
communications processes throughout the change efforts, but this research
demonstrates that the latter two characteristics are not as critical as the former;
6. External forces, such as government vision and policy, must be aligned;
7. Double-loop learning must be embraced organizationally to trul y change the status
quo, which in turn requires trust, collaboration, and learning;
144
8. District leadership matters therefore be attentive to leadership behaviours; and
9. Great to excellent organizations and level five networks are within reach as outcomes
of successful implementation of the previous recommendations.
My recommendations for similar research, for future researchers, include the following:
1. A study period longer than four years;
2. An expanded stakeholder pool for interviews, including students, parents, and
teachers;
3. A collection of narratives documenting stakeholder experiences as a blend to
retrospective interviews about the research period; and
4. A broader set of metrics, collected from the start of the research period, including but
not limited to student engagement, student discipline referrals, expulsions, staff
attrition and wellness, and student attendance.
Implications
As education systems across the industrialized world begin or continue with
modernization efforts, the implications of this research are significant. Canadian educational
jurisdictions, which are autonomous provincial entities, as well as many European and Southeast
Asian countries, are working to modernize their education systems in unique ways and at much
different paces from one another. Some jurisdictions, for example Finland, believe that shifting
to a competency-based program of studies will lead to a transformed system (OECD, 2013).
Singapore has articulated an imperative that the skills students need in the future are much
different than what is currently being provided and has committed to continue to change.
This research demonstrates that large-scale organizational change in education systems is
possible, against all odds and historical perspectives, and should be considered. Although limited
145
in size and length, and lacking corroborating studies, this research is replicable within education
organizations across the world, both at a macro, governmental level all the way through to
individual schools and classrooms. From the onset, this research attempted to reveal the
conditions for change in a larger organization, grounded in participatory and experiential views
of internal leadership. Large-scale data sets demonstrated that changes were occurring in the
system compared to the previous five-year baselines.
The six qualitative themes are supported individually in the research but are not viewed
as a set of interdependent macro-level change characteristics. The dissonance in education
systems has typicall y been that one change effort is enough, and educators will continue to
struggle with a multidimensional approach to organizational change. Education history, although
to be celebrated and always remembered, is indeed a barrier if citizens collectively cannot
recognize that education must be modernized to fulfill our fiduciary role to prepare youth for the
future. All around the education system, organizational and cultural change is occurring, from
the way man y companies require employees to work to progression on social values. Perhaps the
imperative for change in the education system is as simple as responding to the needs of a
rapidly changing world. This was the original imperative of establishing a free and public
education system.
Upon reflection on the research findings, perhaps the greatest recommendation has been
included here only superficially. The success of the district studied, no matter the degree to
which an individual believes it was successful, was largely dependent upon external structures
aligning at the most opportune time. Superintendents, Boards of Trustees, and principals need to
carefully assess this point. Soon after work began in RVS, the provincial government released a
blueprint for education change through to 2030. The Minister of Education, ministry officials,
146
elected representatives, and the premier all embraced and endorsed this vision. Provincial
policies, regulations, and even legislation were all being shaped to support the change.
Organizations within the broader sector were all recalibrating to support their members to do this
work, including, but not limited to, the College of Alberta School Superintendents, the Alberta
School Boards Association, the Alberta School Councils’ Association, and the ATA. Therefore,
district leaders need to assess the macro-level conditions within countries, states, and provinces
to embark upon the change described here. In short, collective efforts may need to be centred on
capacity building at the political level before success can be realized at the local level.
Educational leaders need to be aware of, if not immediately attend to, this observation. The
district studied in this research had an overwhelming degree of support within the conditions
needed for large-scale organizational change.
Education systems across the world continue to navigate reform efforts. All are grounded
in one common theme: to do what is right for students. That is where the similarity ends. This
research proposes an alternate view that the path to improved learning outcomes is nested within
the large-scale organizational change characteristics discussed here, and not through smaller
class sizes and decreased hours of instruction as the dominant discourse has been over the last 20
years. It further proposes that a set of change initiatives, embarked upon systematically at the
same time, can produce a culture of change. In 2015, as educators discuss creating a student-
centred education system and fostering 21st-century learning competencies in students and staff,
the findings of this research should at least be discussed by educators as a means to create the
systems everyone aspires to have. We owe at least that much to our students today, as we begin
to legitimately prepare them for a future that will be far more dynamic than the world we now
live in.
147
148
References Alberta Education. (1994). Meeting the challenge: Three-year business plan 1994 to 1997.
Edmonton, AB: Author.
Alberta Education. (2003). Alberta’s commission on learning: final report. Edmonton, AB:
Author.
Alberta Education. (2010). Inspiring education: A dialogue with Albertans. Edmonton, AB:
Author.
Alberta Education. (2011a). Accountability pillar online reporting instrument. Edmonton, AB:
Author.
Alberta Education. (2011b). Inspiring action. Edmonton, AB: Author. Alberta Education. (2013, May). Ministerial order on student learning. Retrieved from
Borman, G., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Madden, N. A., & Chambers, B.
(2007). Final reading outcomes of the national randomized field trial for Success for All.
American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 701–739.
Britton, P., & Stallings, J. (1986). Leadership is empowering people. Lanham, MD: University
Press of America. Br yk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Castagnola, J. (2005). The role of the superintendent of schools in improving student
achievement. New Britain, CT: Central Connecticut State University Press.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t. New
York, NY: HarperCollins. Cosner, S. (2009). Building organizational capacity through trust. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 45, 248–291.
Covey, S. M. R. (2006). The speed of trust. Salt Lake City, UT: The Franklin-Covey Foundation.
Creed, W. E. D., & Miles, R. E. (1996). Trust in organizations: A conceptual framework linking
organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and opportunity costs of controls. In R.
Kramer & T. T yler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers on theory and research (pp.
16–38).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (1998). The superintendent contradiction. Education Week, 18(7), 56.
Curral, S., & Judge, T. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(2), 151–170.
151
Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Professional learning in the teaching profession. Dallas, TX:
NSDC.
Darling-Hammond, L., Lapointe, M., Meyerson, M., & Orr, M. (2007). Preparing school leaders
for a changing world: Executive summary. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford
Educational Leadership Institute.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.).
London, United Kingdom: Sage. Dewey, J. (1897, January). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54, 77–80.
DiPaola, M. F., & Stronge, J. (2003). Superintendent evaluation handbook. Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow.
Dufour, R. (2007). In praise of top-down leadership. School Administrator, 64(10), 38–42.
Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for
enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Dufour, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at
work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
literature review. Rosemont, IL: Author. Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Elmore, R., Fullan, M., & Schlecht y, P. (2006). Leadership and learning. New York, NY: The
Wallace Foundation.
152
Ertmer, P., & Newb y, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical
features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
6(4), 50–72. Evans, G. (2014, May 31). Calls for PISA to re-think amid Shanghai speculation. Wales Online.
Retrieved from http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/calls-pisa-re-think-amid-
shanghai-7197163
Fairholm, G. (1994). Leadership and the culture of trust. Westport, CT: Praeger. Fink, D. (2000). The attrition of educational change over time: The case of innovative lighthouse
schools. Toronto, Canada: Psychology Press.
Fink, D. (2005). Leadership for mortals: Developing and sustaining leaders of learning.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Friesen, S. (2009). What did you do in school today? Teaching effectiveness: A framework and
rubric. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Education Association.
Friesen, S. (2010, August). Historical paradigms of education. Paper presented at College of
Alberta School Superintendents summer conference, Canmore, AB. Friesen, S., & Jardine, D. (2010). 21st century learning and learners. Calgary, AB: Galileo
Educational Network.
Friesen, S., & Lock, J. (2010). High performing districts in the application of 21st century
learning technologies: Review of research. Prepared for College of Alberta School
Superintendents. Retrieved from http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10063916/h
erforming_Districts_in_the_Application_of_Learning_Technologies.pdf Fullan, M. (2001). Leadership in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2003). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2006). Leading professional learning. The School Administrator, 63(10), 1–9.
Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their
organizations survive and thrive. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M. (2009a). Large scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2),
101–113.
Fullan, M. (2009b). Motion leadership: The skinny on becoming change savvy. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. Centre for Strategic
Education. Melbourne, Australia: CSE. Fullan, M. (2013). Cultures built to last: Systemic PLCs in action. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree Press.
Fullan, M., & Bo yle, A. (2014). Big city school reforms: Lessons from New York, Toronto, and
London. Toronto, ON: Teachers’ College Press.
Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Galway, G., & Wiens, J. (2013). The impact of centralization on local school district governance
in Canada. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 145(9), 1–34.
Glass, T. (2001). Superintendent leaders look at the superintendency, school boards and reform
(ECS Issue Paper). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Goens, G. A. (2009). Evaluating the superintendent. American School Board Journal, 196(3),
24–39.
Gray, A. (1997). Constructivist teaching and learning. SSTA Research Centre, 97(7), 1–25.
Greene, J. (2011). Why America needs school choice. New York, NY: Encounter Books.
154
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second
international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653–691).
London, United Kingdom: Kluwer Academic.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational
change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Harris, A. (2008). Distributed school leadership: Developing tomorrow’s leaders. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Harris, A. (2010). Leading s ystem transformation. School Leadership and Management, 30(3),
197–207. Harris, A., & Chrispeels, J. (Eds.). (2008). International perspectives on school improvement.
London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Hartman, D. K. (2008). Research on instruction and assessment in the new literacies of online
reading comprehension. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Harvard University. (2004). Public education leadership project at Harvard University.
Retrieved from http://pelp.fas.harvard.edu Hopkins, D. (2010). Every school a great school: Realising the potential of system leadership.
New York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media.
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and
emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525.
Kotter, J. P. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Boston, MA: Harvard
Lawton, D. (1995). The Tory mind on education. London, United Kingdom: Falmer Press.
Ledward, B. C., & Hirata, D. (2011). An overview of 21st century skills. Honolulu, HI:
Kamehameha Schools-Research and Evaluation. Leithwood, K. (2008). Characteristics of high-performing school districts: A review of empirical
evidence. Toronto, ON: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto
Press.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading school turnaround: How successful
leaders transform low-performing schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times.
Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences
student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
Leithwood, K. & Louis, S. L. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Levin, B. (2010). Governments and educational reform: Some lessons from the last 50 years.
Journal of Educational Policy, 25(6), 739–747.
156
Levin, B. (2013, June). Getting to better schools: The promise and pitfalls of educational reform.
Literacy Review of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.reviewcanada.ca Lewis, J., & Wiegert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985.
Louis, K. S. (2006). Changing the culture of schools: Professional community, organizational
learning and trust. Journal of School Leadership, 16(4), 1–20. Malen, B., Ogawa, R., & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about school-based management?
A case study of the literature: A call for research. In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.),
Choice and control in American education, Vol. 2: The practice of choice,
decentralization and school restructuring (pp. 289–342). Basingstoke, United Kingdom:
Falmer Press.
McCoog, I. J. (2008). 21st century teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/
?id=ED502607 McKinsey & Compan y. (2007). How the world’s best performing school jurisdictions come out
on top. New York, NY: Author.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L., & Chervan y, N. L. (1995, October). Trust formation in new
organizational relationships. Paper presented at the Information and Decision Sciences
Workshop, Minneapolis, MN.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: jossey-Bass. Monahan, T. (2005). Globalization, technological change, and public education. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school
systems keep getting better. New York, NY: McKinsey & Compan y.
Seidman, I. (2005). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
Sinek, S. (2012). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. New York,
NY: Penguin.
Singapore Education. (1999). Programme for rebuilding and improving existing schools
(PRIME). Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/prime/ Sleegers, P., Geijsel, F., & Van Den Berg, R. (2002). Conditions fostering educational change. In
K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational
leadership and administration (pp. 75–102). London, UK: Kluwer Academic.
Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143–150. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.; pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. London, United Kingdom: Sage.
Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Taylor, A. (2001). The politics of education reform in Alberta. Toronto, ON: University of
Toronto Press.
Taylor, F. (1967). The principles of scientific management. London, UK: W.W. Norton and
Company. (Original work published 1911)
Thomas, D., & Seel y-Brown, J. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating imagination for a
world of constant change. Columbia University, NY: Teachers College Record.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Ho y, W. (2000). A multidisciplinary anal ysis of the nature, meaning,
and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547–593.
Vygotsk y, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement [working paper]. Denver, CO: McCrel.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7, 225–
246. Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Whitty, G. (2002). Making sense of education policy. London, United Kingdom: Sage.
Willms, D., Friesen, S., & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Transforming
classrooms through social, academic, and intellectual engagement. Toronto, ON:
Canadian Education Association.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research design methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Designs and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zand, D. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly,
17(2), 229–239.
161
Appendix A: Three-Year Plan Consolidated Feedback Overview of Three Year Plan Planning Process
September 2007
Jurisdictional Priorities During the spring of 2007 Rocky View School Division launched a cross-constituent planning process for the purpose of developing its 2008-2011 Three Year Plan. The first phase of the process involved almost 200 students, parents, school council members, support staff, teachers, administrators, trustees and business leaders participated in identifying educational and operational priorities for Rocky View School Division. Phase Two will resume this fall, with participants returning to identifying long-term goals, outcomes, performance measures and strategies. Five dates have been set: Sept. 25, Oct. 2, Oct. 23 and Oct. 30 have been reserved for the focus groups to reconvene to review the priorities identified and to begin work on the Three Year Plan; Feb. 5 has been set aside for the entire group to meet to review a draft of the plan. Stakeholders will be advised in September of their focus group date. Listed below are the priorities identified during the spring of 2007. Results from these discussions were collected and grouped into 19 categories. The proceeding pages outlines all of the priorities and the descriptors participants provided in defining their priorities.
Categories
• Common Vision & Belief Statements Basic Building Blocks (Literacy/Numeracy)
• Meeting the Diverse Needs of Students • Acquisition of 21st Century Skills • Safe and Caring Learning Environment • Career Development • Citizenship & Character Development • Technology as a Learning Tool • Accessible Programs and Resources • Class Sizes
Health and Wellness of Staff and Students
• Leadership • Recruitment & Retention of Qualified,
Competent Staff • Professional Development • Innovation in the Delivery of Instruction • Community Partnerships • Open and Transparent Communication • Access to Technology • Facilities and Infrastructure
162
Common Vision & Belief Statements • Belief statements and principles supporting a commonly held vision
- Why? Think globally – Act locally • A commitment to those who provide and support education (teachers, staff…)
- technology training - mentorship - health and wellness - system wide flexibility - recruit, maintain and provide mentorship opportunities for excellent staff
• Belief statements and principles supporting a common held vision - drives decision making (i.e. looking at disparity and access)
• Developing RVSD Learning Community - Develop vision, set of beliefs, guiding principles - Building leadership capacity - Focus on continuous improvement - Collaborative culture - Open and honest communication
• Developing a RVSD Learning Community that has a common & united vision, mission statement and group of guiding principles
- Develop leadership - Open, honest communication - Collaborative culture - Data-driven - Focus on continued improvement
• Why? Increased student achievement & success
Basic Building Blocks (Literacy/Numeracy) • Basic Building Blocks (Literacy/Numeracy)
- Students acquire a good foundation - Don’t lose sight of this beyond grade 3 - This is more important than it looks
• Literacy/Numeracy/ESL - Solid foundation - Continues throughout • Literacy and Numeracy - Grade 2 reading
• Literacy - Literacy at every level (print, computer, multi-media) - Literacies are critically important
• Learning & Literacy - meaningful engagement - individual student - French Immersion/Special Programs, i.e. First Nations - grade level expectations - meeting diverse needs of students - ESL, Gifted, Special Needs - RAP, K & E, Work experience - Opportunity for all students to be able to excel - High School completion - Literacy Skills
163
- Technology Software - Laptops, Mobile Labs - Balancing technology - Meeting the needs of students - No technology at home or basic school supplies
Meeting the Diverse Needs of Students • Variety of Programs/Opportunities
- To best meet the needs of all students, differentiate instruction style • Meet the needs of all students
- ESL - Early intervention - Gifted/talented - Speech language - At-risk students - Give teachers & students tools to be successful
• All students have access to resources and programming to facilitate differentiated instruction in order to access personal excellence.
- Variety of options & experiences - Special needs/Gifted - Class size
• Students Achieve Personal Excellence • Success for each student; each child achieves personal excellence
- Differentiation & support for individual needs - Diversity of programming (trade, apprenticeships, alternative schools, etc.) - Quality & equity in programming - Smaller class size - High level of technology - Mandatory physical activity - Safe & caring environment - Why? Resilient, active, healthy, decision making citizens
• Quality Learning and Meaningful Engagement for All - addressing the diverse needs of students - availability and awareness of alternate programs
• Quality Programming - provide quality programming that meets the diversity of all learners so that they can meet their
individual potentials - learning styles - apply learning to life - diversity (special needs, gifted/ESL/French Immersion/First Nations Métis and Inuit (FNMI) - career options - early intervention (literacy/numeracy) & continuum of supports - deep learning - coordination of community support services
• Meeting Diverse Needs - behaviour - learning styles - cultural differences - alternative schooling - K & E - FNMI, gifted, special needs, ESL
164
• Success for each and every child - Focus on student achievement and personal excellence - Quality programs and opportunities - Broad range of programs - Funding available for programming - Building skills for teachers to offer the breadth/quality of programming
• Meeting Student Needs - Differentiation—both at risk/gifted/special needs/FNMI/ESL, etc. - Early intervention - Special needs support & services - Resource availability
• Meeting the learning needs of all students through programming - diverse needs - numeracy - special education - literacy - gifted - at risk - system wide flexibility - native education - choice/alternative programming - technology - RAP - linking the outside community - definition of success - French Immersion
• Diversity of Programs - Meeting needs of all students
• Programming - Vocational programs - Arts programs - Options that enhance healthy lifestyles - More options - Early literacy - Parent involvement
• Student Advancement - Close the gap between advancement and achievement - Getting kids in the right courses at the right time (when they are ready for it) - Be responsive to all levels of students – we provide for the special needs, what about middle and
highly able students - Creating classes with thought to student needs – reasons for student placement through to high
school - Start times for teenagers (9:00) - Supporting students within the classroom – not pulling them out - Students want to know about course choices earlier to gear their decisions
• Student Learning Opportunities - Provides a diversity of student talent exiting our schools - Encourages students to stay in school because their needs are being met - Choices – fine arts, vocational centres - Partnerships to sustain programs beyond funding changes - Facilities – adequately equipped, space (taking down walls), environmental aspects
165
(how buildings are built) - Workplace learning opportunities and partnerships - Opportunities beyond the classroom – J-block credits - Learning styles – recognizing the importance and implementing a variety in all areas - Time tabling – flexibility to get all classes you want and teacher availability
• Cultural Literacy - Art - Music - Dance
• Multi-lingual Programs - Important - Cultural
• Meeting Needs of Students - Students have needs - Program for students instead of putting students in programs
• Support the development of the whole student/child - academic - global - environmental - citizenship - safe and caring schools
• Meeting needs of every student - Provide access to the highest level of programming possible - Support alternate and specialized programming - Support differentiation and individual programming for coded to average to gifted students - Flexible and responsive structures - special education, j blocks, scheduling, accelerations, team teaching, calendar decisions,
transportation, connections • Meeting the diverse learning needs of all students
• Individual Programming - Individual student needs will be attended to in a timely fashion - ESL - gifted - mild/moderate - severe - slow learners
• Meeting diverse needs of students - Why? Definition of excellence
• Meeting needs of all students
166
- Individual programs and specific supports - System wide flexibility and responsiveness
• Social/Emotional Needs - Community School - well-rounded student - cultural diversity
• All students - Meeting the diverse needs of students - Safe and caring schools - Preparing children for the future - Literacy and numeracy - Wellness - Community partnerships - Equal access to programs/facilities
• Programs - Diverse comprehensive programs to meet the needs of students - Programs to suit student vs. students fitting into programs - Differing delivery and scheduling modes and options - Creative and equitable utilization of facilities in larger settings
Acquisition of 21st Century Skills • Providing Essential Learning Opportunities for Engagement of all Students
- technology (acquisition skills of the 21st century) - critical thinking - lifelong learning - survivor skills - financial planning - problem solving - trouble shooting - alternative schooling - RAP, workplace learning, DL - Literacy & Numeracy - Transition ease (students and staff)
• Acquisition of 21st Century Skills - technology - self monitored learning - time management - personal tool kit
• Knowledge skills & Attitudes to Prepare Students for Ever-Changing World - Global citizenship - Life-long learner - Problem solver - Divergent discerning thinker - Team work - Technology aware - Why? You will have students willing and able to enter the future.
• Acquisition of 21st Century Skills - technology - self monitored learning - time management - personal tool kit
167
Safe and Caring Learning Environments • Safe Learning Environment
- Kids will learn when they feel safe • Continue to develop a safe and caring school environment
- Nutrition - Drug counselling - Relationships - RCMP present - Bullying & respect - Citizenship - Stress management - Foster school spirit - Service opportunities
• Safe and Caring Environment - social- emotional
Career Development • Career Development
- Expanded vision of technology, career paths and academics - Greater facilitation of career exploration - Partnerships with postsecondaries from technical schools to colleges and universities
• Other - More postsecondary information - RAP Program – good opportunity
• Life skills (personal and global) - Why? For a strong basis for the future
• Networking Environment - For students to allow exchange of ideas and information - Fosters citizenship and spirit
• Prepare students to transition to and adapt within an ever changing world - Career building opportunities - Completion support - Current technology and training to use - Divergent thinking - Global awareness
• Life Skills - Develop employability skills such as time-management, stress management, test-taking skills,
trouble-shooting - Career planning—provide students with information - Self-awareness/learning style/strengths - Decision-making – accountability - Health/physical fitness (drug awareness, smoking, benefits of exercise, nutrition)
Citizenship & Character Development • Citizenship
- An environment that develops positive meaningful face to face relationships - Well rounded kids that will contribute to a global society - Leadership opportunities (students, teachers, admin.) - Fostering culture - Encouraging intrinsic rewards
168
- Motivation - Dealing with issues in a timely fashion (with respect) - Building trust at all levels - Environmental/global/cultural awareness - Partnerships with the community
• Character Development - Well-rounded citizens
• Systemically supported community relationships - We need to develop a common commitment to: - citizenship and character education - global environmental concerns - pyramids of intervention and ownership for one another’s success - mentorship - retaining and furthering the legacies of staff - partnerships between schools and community
• Citizenship - Character development
• Citizenship - Consistency in the development of social/emotional competencies to enhance citizenship of all
within RVSD school communities • Global Citizenship, Leadership and Recognition
- environmental stewardship - cultural awareness - volunteerism - achievement--sports & academic - general “good things” recognition
• Global Citizenship - Schools to be prepared for changing demographics (i.e. ESL learners) - Sense of pride within community as a functioning member - Respect for multicultural society to help prevent marginalization or isolation - Acceptance of all individual differences to create a tolerant society
• Global Citizenship - Empowered learning of all kinds - Produce contributing members of society - Independent critical thinking
• Citizenship - Safe caring environment - Responsible citizens - Culture of respect - Community mindedness - Service to others - Environmental stewardship • Citizenship and Character Education - cultural awareness - global/environmental awareness - virtues - health & well-being • Citizenship - confident students - quality people - global environment awareness
169
- global cultural awareness - leadership, problem solving - peer support - diversity of students (learning, ethnic) - virtues, safe & caring - resiliency - preparedness for real world - leadership development - student body involvement - character building - field trips - community links
• Citizenship “Preparing students for the future” - leadership - values based education - global awareness and responsibility - resiliency (perseverance) - critical thinkers - service learning
Technology as a Learning Tool • Focus on Technology
- Preparing students for the world • Technology as a learning tool
- Address disparity and access issues - Access to training - Video conferencing - Library inter-connectedness - Student web mail - Virtual classrooms within the school
• Technology - Support and access - Innovative and current applications
• Application of relevant technology - Why? This is the information age
• Technical Availability - Lifelong learners - On-line courses - learning within school
• Technology - Keep current – both students and teachers - Open the classroom to a global environment - Fastest changing tool – students need this to compete in the real world - Computers as a natural extension of the learning environment (used as the tool it is) - 6+ computers per class for quick access - mobile carts for whole class use - video conferencing – extension beyond class - need facilities that support the technology - need technology to work efficiently - professional development to keep teachers current
• Technology - Provide resources, knowledge & strategies for today and tomorrow’s world
170
• Technology - Keeping all involved current
• Access to Technology Accessible Programs & Resources • Students
- Time tabling issues - Better access - Advanced - Class sizes
• Extracurricular & Sports - more availability - more encouragement
• Diversity of Learning /Programs - Small schools vs. large schools - Funds and programming - RAP – get apprenticeship year over while still in high school
• Delivery of program - Online - Transition - Lifelong learning
• Students having access to the best tools/resources for accessing learning - facilities well-maintained and updated - infusing technology into curriculum - other resources or tools - textbooks - equipment - supplies
• Equity and Quality: the system will operate to provide reasonable equity in: - resources - programs - facilities - technology - leadership - Why? Regardless of school size, students should have opportunity to access a broad range of Rocky View programs.
• Resources - Classroom space - Support staff - Expertise – lending library specific to support staff issues - Students have access to resources and programming to support their learning - Book resources to support student learning
• Programming Resources - Sufficient staff to implement integration policy - Reduce wait time for assessment - Clear policy and staffing for gifted education - Translators for ESL students
Class Sizes • Class-size Initiative
- K-12 smaller class sizes at ALL levels
171
- Facilitates relationships - Supports inquiry - Allows for authentic assessment - Allows for differentiation and honouring/awareness of learning styles
• Class Size - Provide optimal learning environments - Connections to students—human touch
Health & Wellness of Staff and Students • Health and Wellbeing of Learning Community
- recognition & communication - space (windowless classrooms) - safe and caring—Project RISK
• Promoting Health - wellness of staff/students - daily Physical Education (PE) - qualified/training for PE - attendance - activities for daily living - mental health - comprehensive health
• Health and Wellness - encouraging a healthy lifestyle - students and staff - physically - exercise - nutrition - mentally - emotionally
• Health and Wellness - physical - nutrition - sleep - relationships - education - recreation rather than competition
Leadership • Responsible and Responsive Leadership
- succession planning - leadership development - students - support staff - teachers - administration - EC staff
• Strong, Cohesive Leadership and Direction - all levels - manageable
• Leadership Models
172
- Foster the development of a leadership model for all levels within RVSD (i.e. student, staff, community members)
• Leadership - Student, staff, school division, parents
Recruitment & Retention of Qualified, Competent Staff • Success for Staff & Teachers
- Recruitment & retaining quality staff - Continue class size initiative - Why? Staff fulfillment, enriching environment, connection to each other & school
• Succession Planning - planning for recruitment - retirement planning - transitional planning of students - elementary to middle school to high school to postsecondary - start career planning - career days to agencies - fieldtrips - retention of staff – all levels - generate loyalty in career - keeping the history, wisdom - mentoring of our teachers
• Succession Planning • Teacher Quality
- Quality teaching environment - Leadership/mentor - Professional development opportunities
• Developing Leadership at Divisional and Staff Level - Mentorship
- National high school leadership • Teachers
- Teachers in subject areas - Teacher evaluations - Qualified - Communication with administration and teachers when problems arise - Nice to have relationships - Nice to feel comfortable in the classroom
• Keep and maintain excellent staff • Recruitment and retention of staff
- Mentorship, succession planning at all levels - Professional development - Ensuring competency - Wellness
• Quality Teaching and Learning Environment - Supports high quality teachers and supportive learning environments
• Quality Teaching Environment - Healthy, supported environments draw high quality teachers (that we keep) - Provide students with healthy, supportive environments that students want to learn in - Drawing and keeping young talented teachers - Principal at large/mentorship program - Decrease the “band wagon” effect
173
- Set goals and priorities that we filter new things through - Don’t burn-out teachers - Have teachers that are appropriately trained to teach their subject ( professional development to
knowledge) - Sustained divisional collaboration (PD meetings with same groups) - Small class sizes - Wellness - PE and Health can’t be seen as add-ons
Professional Development • Developing RVSD Learning Community
- Professional Development as a priority - Calendar reflecting this priority - Coordination between levels - Elementary/Middle/High - Transition between schools
• Quality embedded Professional Development - time
• PD for all stakeholders/ Lifelong Learning - Alberta Initiatives for school improvement - School Calendar reflecting PD options - Students - Parents - Educators - Support staff
• Provide quality professional development - Opportunities for collaboration
• Quality Teaching - Quality professional development to enhance instruction and student learning - Mentoring of new teachers - Provide time for collaboration/debrief - Job-embedded PD - Reassess effectiveness of CAIS team model
• Staff - Professional development - Inspire continuous innovative growth
• Success for Staff & Teachers - Quality continuous professional learning - Professional development
• In-service /training of staff - Meeting diversity and changing demographics
• Professional Development - On-going professional development and in-servicing of staff to keep pace with technological and
demographic changes Innovation in the Delivery of Instruction • Commitment to those who provide, receive and support education
- Support innovative practice (professional development)
174
- based on current research, technology - encourage risk taking - move out of the classroom into the world - hands on activities - ownership for one another’s success - Supporting and promoting effective leadership - plan for succession, mentors - timely recruitment and retention - pyramid of support, student led - Wellness - healthy and active living - mentoring - physical, mental, psychological, career, well being
Community Partnerships • Agent of community connection • Building strong partnerships with all stakeholders to promote and facilitate education.
- Communication - Input into decision making - Collaboration - Shared vision
• To meaningfully involve parents & community actively - Communication—website - Opportunities for input - Building strong partnerships - School start point for access & knowledge of other community based resources - Why? Recognition of importance, meaningful involvement, acknowledge their responsibility to be
part of education process • Building Strong Partnerships to Support Education - Parents/school council—advisory role
- Meaningful involvement of all parents - Community partnerships—business/service clubs
• Community Advocacy and Connectivity - citizenship and stewardship - private, corporate, and community sponsorship
• Community Connectivity - school at the heart of the community - community partnerships/mentorships - students out in the community - community members in the school - increased external supports in schools/awareness - social agencies
• Community Connections - community partnerships - credit programs - parent involvement - student options - community relationships - social supports outside school - community resources - guest speakers
175
- informing parents of education - use of technology for information spreading - in-service for parents - “phone fan out”
• Parent Involvement - communication - informed partners - contributors to student learning
• Community Involvement - essential partners (future employees)
• Community Collaboration - communication - advocacy - lobbying
• Planning Partnerships - Enhancing opportunities through partnerships with community - Funding through CHR etc. - Habitat
• Community Involvement/Partnerships - Green certificate - Mechanical skills – outside school - CTS in local businesses and mentoring
• Family-School Liaison Partnerships - on-going communication yields support
• School/Family Partnerships • Partnerships
- Families - Business - Services
• Partnerships - Draw on and develop partnerships to access community resources for a number of reasons: RAP,
facility use, provision of other resources to enhance learning opportunities Communication • Communication
- Open communication is a powerful tool - Parents are able to support their children - Decreases misunderstandings among the stakeholders - Various forms of communication - Using technology - Translating info. for ESL parents - Common report cards - Coordination between staff – how much homework is being assigned? - Divisional collaboration
• Communication - Open and transparent - Involve all stakeholders
• Communication - Foster open communication
• Communication - Between all stakeholders to enhance understanding and mutual respect
176
- Facilitate transition from elementary to middle school to high school to postsecondary - Welcoming schools for the diverse demographics within RVSD
Access to Technology • Technology
- Access to computers for all (don’t assume everyone has a computer) - High school needs to have access to all aspects of technology (computer animation, film- making)
Facilities & Infrastructure • Facilities
- Maintenance and repair - Support of small schools and programming - Decisions based on research - Improvement of learning environment - Facilities for non-core programming • Infrastructure and facilities - Preparedness for growth - Renovation and maintenance
• Innovative ways to deal with infrastructure needs - Why? Creative efficiency
• Innovative ways of providing adequate infrastructure - utilizing community space - technology within school - providing time, space and facilities to meet programming needs - (think outside the box)
• Infrastructure - Optimum space for optimum learning
• Infrastructure - hard - space/healthy space - divisional environmental stewardship - soft - PD - ongoing training and implementation
• Appropriate Infrastructure and Supports - space - class size - technology - time - effective lobbying
• Infrastructure - space - lighting - shelving - technology - space and equipment - wiring - support staff servers - curriculum changes - how to implement everything - PD, in-service, training time - Learning resources updated
177
- Current textbooks • Facilities
- Computers and cafeteria outlets to teach from - More internet access
• Environment - Capacity for environment - Solar panels - Wind generator
• Infrastructure - Infrastructure has to support all learning – equitable access for students - Physical upgrades - Classroom size - Healthy environment - Appropriate eating spaces - Technological upgrades
178
Appendix B: Research Overview April 1, 2013
Study Overview
“The Effectiveness of Enabling Transformational Change Across a School District”
This research is being conducted to satisfy the requirements of Mr. Bass’ academic
degree project at the University of Calgary. The dissertation is in partial fulfillment of the degree
of Education Doctorate. The study examines the extent to which transformation in teaching and
learning occurred across a school district.
Participation in this research is in no way a requirement of your employment, and your
non-participation or subsequent withdrawal will have no effect on your continuing relationship
with Rocky View Schools.
All recruitment, consent, and data collection activities will be conducted by a hired
research assistant, who will provide Mr. Bass with a completely anon ymized dataset after these
processes have been completed. Mr. Bass will not purposefully be made aware of the identity of
any individual participant in this study.
Due to the extremely limited participant sample of central office staff (four associate
superintendents, four 21st century learning coaches, four learning directors, twelve principals), it
is probable that your participation in this study will be recognized by the researcher and by
others who are familiar with your role in Rocky View Schools.
179
Appendix C: Demographic Profile Form
Thank you for your interest in participating in this research project. As the research
requires school principal leadership from a variety of settings, the information you provide on
this form will facilitate in this regard and greatly benefit the research assistant in selecting a
representative sample of principals in RVS. All information you provide will be kept entirely
confidential and securely locked in an area accessible only to the research assistant from the
University of Calgar y.
Please complete this form as a word document, save a copy, and send to Ms. Tyla
Charbonneau, research assistant, at [email address]. Candidates will be notified by e-mail if they
are chosen to participate in the study or not. Those selected will be asked for further contact
information to facilitate the interview time and venue selection.
Personal Information:
Given name & Surname:
Gender: M [ ] F [ ]
Educational Background [Degree(s)]:
Current Position:
Years of Principal/Central Office Experience:
E-mail Address:
N.B. Please choose a pseudonym for anon ymit y purposes during this entire research process:
180
Appendix D: Consent Form April 1, 2013 Invitation to Participate in Research – University of Calgary
Graduate Division of Educational Research (G.D.E.R.)
CONSENT FORM
Names&ContactInformationoftheResearcher,Assistant&Supervisor A) Researcher Mr. Greg Bass, Ed.D. (Candidate) Superintendent of Schools, Rocky View Schools (R.V.S.) Telephone – [telephone number] E-mail – [email address]
B) Research Assistant Ms. Tyla Charbonneau, M.Sc. Graduate Student, Faculty of Ps ychology, University of Calgar y E-mail – [email address]
C) Supervisor Dr. Dianne Gereluk, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Calgar y Telephone – [telephone number] E-mail – [email address]
Title of Project: The Effectiveness of Enabling Transformation Change Across a School
District
N.B. The University of Calgar y Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Review Board has approved this study as well as the RVS ethics board.
This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, constitutes the informed consent process. If you would like more details about something mentioned here, or information not included here, please feel free to ask. Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand any accompan ying information.
Purpose of this study
The main use of the collected data will be to inform the applicant’s EdD study at the University of Calgar y. The purpose of this research is to examine the extent to which a school district transformed into a 21st Century learning organization. It is anchored in the analysis of second- order change (Marzano & Waters, 2006) which is an abandonment of the status quo. Specifically, the purpose is to answer the following research question and inform the educational community of the results:
181
“To what extent did transformational change occur in RVS from 2007–11? ” In considering this central question, a critical analysis of the conditions prior to and following the implementation of the school district’s strategic plan, considering internal and external indicators of change, will be completed. Further, this research will critically examine the internal and external factors that were implemented in an attempt to enable systemic change across the school district.
Methodology
This research study is an exploratory case stud y examining RVS from 2007–11. The worldview is one of social construction. A sequential mixed methods analysis will be conducted, with the quantitative data formed by APORI and RVS survey data and the qualitative data comprised of up to twenty-five (25) interviews of school and district leaders. As many as twelve (12) school principals and thirteen (13) central leaders will be interviewed. Quantitative data will be qualified by extracting themes and then the qualitative data will be quantified by counting the number of times the extracted themes emerge from the interview transcripts (Creswell, 2006).
What type of personal information will be collected?
If you are interested in participating in this study, please contact the research assistant directly via e-mail. You will then be asked to fill out a brief demographic profile to allow the research assistant to get a representative sample of leaders in RVS, from urban and rural, large schools and small, and a range of leadership experience. All communication other than this initial invitation will be with the research assistant. Participants will be selected and navigated through the process by the assistant. The demographic form, and any data you provide, will be kept confidential, masked through the use of pseudonyms, and secured on an encrypted laptop and back up drive. Upon completion of the study in the fall of 2013, all data will be destroyed.
What will you be asked to do?
If selected for this study, you will be asked to:
a) Participate in a semi-structured, open-ended, recorded interview lasting approximately
one hour and conducted at a location mutually agreed to by both the participant and research assistant.
b) Confirm the transcription is accurate by reviewing and amending if required the written record within two (2) weeks of receipt or it will be deemed accurate.
c) Contribute freely during the interview to frame your account in your own words and make whatever connections and observations you like. The research assistant may ask you for clarification but otherwise will not intervene. The interview will be recorded and notes may also be taken.
d) Participate voluntary. If you wish to withdraw your consent you ma y do so any time. An y data collected to the point of withdrawal, however, will be retained and may be used in this research study.
182
e) Understand that participation in the research is in no way a requirement of your employment, and your non-participation or subsequent withdrawal will have no effect on your continuing relationship with Rocky View Schools.
f) Understand that all recruitment, consent, and data collection activities are being conducted by a hired research assistant, who will provide the doctoral candidate with a completely anonymized dataset after these processes have been completed; the researcher will not be purposely be made aware as to the identity of an y individual participant in this study.
g) Understand that due to the extremely limited participant sample it is possible that others who are familiar with your role in Rocky View Schools will recognize your participation in the study.
h) Understand that individual schools will not be identified in the study except as categorized as rural or urban, large (greater than 500 students) or small (less than 500 students).
Are there any risks or benefits if I participate?
The researcher foresees no risk to participants. Should you be concerned about your participation being known, you control the choice of location for the interview. Careful consideration has been given to the structure of this process and masking participants from researcher has been of paramount importance during the ethics application process.
What happens to the information I provide?
All recordings and transcripts made from them will be kept confidential and secured on an encrypted laptop and back-up drive stored in a locked office in the faculty of education at the University of Calgar y. Once a recording (mp4 format) is complete and uploaded to the encrypted laptop it will be deleted. The transcript will be provided to the principal researcher by the assistant researcher and the original recordings deleted from the laptop and back-up drive by the assistant as part of the ethics approval for this study. At no point will names appear on the recordings or transcripts. A professional third-party, working under a signed confidentiality agreement, will be hired to complete transcription of the interview recordings. The written transcripts will be retained by the researcher as formation of the final body of research to be published. At all times, confidentiality, security, and anonymity will be of paramount importance as per ethics approval.
No personal information will be included in the final research. Quotations may be used but will be anonymous and presented in such a way that the identity of the participant cannot be extracted from the context. Pseudonyms will be used for further protection of identity. Central office staff data will be aggregated with school principal data for masking purposes, with the exception of comparing and contrasting school-based and central-based leadership perspectives on aggregated basis only. Onl y aggregate results will be presented.
The researcher will destroy all transcribed data from the interviews after five (5) years. This data will be stored on the researcher’s password-protected and encrypted computer.
183
No other person will have access to this data. The research assistant will retain no data after the submission of the data to the transcribing company. The transcribing company will destroy all data after submission to the principal researcher.
Participant Comments/Complaints Contact Information
If participants have comments or complaints about this research process, please contact:
Mr. Russell Burrows Senior Ethics Resource Officer Office of Research Ethics, Research Services University of Calgar y [telephone number] [email address]
Signature of Consent
Your signature on this form indicates that you 1) understand to your satisfaction the information provided to you about your participation in this research project, and 2) agree to participate in the research.
In no wa y does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators or involved institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities.
Participant Name (print):
Participant Signature: Date: _
Research Assistant Name (print):
Research Assistant Signature: Date:
Appreciatively,
Greg Bass
184
Appendix E: Interview Guide
The nature of the questions in the semi-structured interviews will be grouped into the
following four areas:
A) Understanding of Inspiring Education Vision and RVS Three-Year Plans
B) Teaching Practices in Classrooms
C) Student Engagement and Empowerment in RVS
D) Leadership Practice in the 21st Century
A. Understanding of Inspiring Education and RVS Three-Year Plans
1. Describe your understanding of the Inspiring Education vision of Alberta Education.
2. Describe your understanding of the first RVS Three-Year Plan—Engaging the 21st Century Learner.
3. Describe your understanding of the second RVS Three-Year Plan—The Power to
Enrich.
4. What is your belief in the alignment of the jurisdiction plans and Inspiring Education?
B - Shift in Teaching Practices in Classrooms in RVS
5. In what wa ys, if at all, have teachers changed their practice over the past four years?
6. How has the use of technology changed teaching and learning?
7. To what degree do teachers understand the shift from knowledge dissemination to
facilitation of knowledge construction?
8. Describe teachers’ understanding and practice of inquiry-based learning?
9. How have teachers implemented Universal Learning Environments in the system?
10. In your opinion, are teachers more or less engaged and intrinsically motivated today
versus four years ago in RVS? Why?
185
C. Student Engagement and Empowerment in RVS
11. In what wa ys has the experience of students changed in RVS?
12. In your opinion, has student engagement in their learning decreased, increased, or
remained the same? Why?
13. Describe some ways of assessing student engagement in RVS schools, and what if
anything has changed over the last four years?
14. In your opinion, are students more or less prepared for life in 2013 and beyond as a
result of the work of RVS over the past four years? Why?
15. What changes in practice, if any, have empowered today’s learners in RVS? What
changes in practice, if any, have hindered the development of today’s learners?
D. Leadership Practice in the 21st Century
16. In what wa ys has leadership practice changed over the last four years in RVS? How
has your practice changed?
17. In your opinion, are school and central leader roles helping to facilitate the realization
of Inspiring Education/RVS three-year plans? Why?
18. What leadership characteristics have changed/must change to support the
transformation of education? What must remain?
19. In your opinion, to what extent has RVS transformed into a 21st Century learning
organization? What has been successful within this work? What are some areas that
need attention to continue the work?
186
Appendix F: Alberta Education Narrative
Rocky View Schools: A 21st Century School Division
How do you build a 21st Century school division? Greg Bass, Superintendent of Rocky View Schools (RVS), has a Jot of experience doing just that. “Perhaps the biggest challenge we faced was how to retool teachers for 21st Century learning; to align teaching practice with the new philosophy,” he says. “How do you tell teachers who have had a high degree of success that they need to change? ”
He found an answer from one of RVS’ principals. Here is how she explained it:
I ask my teachers: are you a cook or a chef? If you’re a cook, you’ve got a recipe and it’s step one, two, three, four. If you miss step four, you can’t get to five, six and you can’t get the end product. If you’re a chef, you don’t even have a recipe. It’s creative, it’s organic, a pinch of this, a pinch of that. If you’re missing an ingredient, you can substitute and create a beautiful, flavourful and unique dish. Now you know you are a chef if you are creative.
And it’s just a reminder to all of them that a cook is what they used to be, and now they’re striving to be a chef
****
Rocky View Schools is shaped like a horseshoe around the west, north, and east boundaries of Calgar y. It manages 40 schools and is home to 18, 000 Kindergarten. to Grade 12 students, making it the fifth largest school division in the province.
However, when Greg Bass arrived there in 2007, he saw a group of schools, rather than a learning community. Schools had their own visions, but the division, as a whole, Jacked cohesion.
Following a tour of the 40 schools, Bass spent a year consulting with a wide range of stakeholders- trustees, teachers, principals, students, parents, supporters, and critics-to create a three-year plan for the division. The central question was: what would a quality education for every student look like by 2011? And how would we get there?
The Rocky View Board of Trustees were involved every step of the way, joining Bass on his tour of schools throughout the district (including and beyond their own wards), participating in consultations to develop the three-year plan, and championing the vision in their communities.
Throughout the plan consultations, Bass had one overarching thought, “We need to close the gap between what we are teaching and what is needed.” Stakeholders were telling him that RVS needed to engage learners in other ways, to address the learning styles of today’s digital students. Using the input of stakeholders and the work of the Metiri Group, RVS’ portrait of the 21st Century Learner emerged: a critical thinker, a problem solver, an innovator, a communicator, a
187
collaborator, globally aware, civically engaged; a self-directed learner, literate in information, media, finance and economics.
This transformation wasn’t by fluke, it was carefully designed. Superintendent Greg Bass
This portrait has been visually captured and is proudly mounted on the walls of every building and school within RVS. (Looking back, Bass wishes they had included literacy and numeracy in the portrait, as some people have expressed concern that RVS is missing fundamental elements of a well-rounded education in its description).
In 2008 RVS launched its new vision along with the three-year plan- a roadmap to move to 21st Century Learning. Its theme “Engaging 21st Century Learners” included new foundation statements, six goals, and related outcomes and strategies.
To support the division’s new approach, Bass restructured the corporate office. Previously, associate superintendents each had an area of responsibility related to either elementary, junior or senior high school. Associates spent 30 to 60 per cent of their time dealing with school issues. And still, principals would say the y didn’t know who to contact or they couldn’t connect with their associate because he or she would be in meetings.
To meet the demands of transforming the division, Bass combined the associate positions of curriculum and instruction into an associate superintendent of learning. That freed up an associate superintendent to become associate superintendent of schools, providing a direct line in the division for principals, assistant principals, and parents to call when faced with school- based issues. Bass also added a director of human resources, a director of schools and a director of communications to enhance the division’s responsiveness
“I have decentralized so much of the authority out of my office. Associates can make a decision, and I support them and hold them accountable for results,” says Bass.
To champion a mental model of “system thinking,” school education plans and school annual results reports were aligned to RVS’ goals, outcomes and performance measures. “The vision, goals, and outcomes of the three-year plan are non-negotiable. But schools, locally, can develop strategies that work for them.” School councils also are aligning with the three-year plan, as are student learning plans and assessments.
“We moved from being in constant crisis mode to being a more efficient system,” says Bass. “People now know what the division’s goals are and what to expect, and that has diminished the number of issues we deal with.”
Accountability is ke y to the success of the three-year plan. All school principals review their school education plans with senior executive every year. As well, in the fall they meet to review their results—where they were strong; where they need to improve. Plans can be adjusted along the way.
188
RVS implements annual evidence-based evaluations of principal practice, one of the only divisions to do so. Bass has staff sit down with principals every spring, and they go through the Principal Quality Standards and review evidence of each standard being met.
“The evaluation process started with the executive, who mirrored the process with their directors. The next step was to engage principals in the process by employing the evaluation process at the school level with assistant principals, teachers and eventually support staff. Now more than ever, we have teachers knowing and living the Teaching Quality Standards.” RVS also has embraced the ISTE NETS Standards for administrators, teachers and students, as they are a more recent reflection of 21st Century teaching and learning.
To ensure staff gained the necessary skills to support 21st Century Learning, one of the first steps was to change the school calendar to incorporate more time for professional learning. The division increased it from five to 10 days, three of which were designated for communities of practice. To garner parental acceptance for more professional learning days—days when students are home from school—RVS promoted the impact that quality of instruction has on learning. RVS also created a mantra across the division that everyone is a learner. To accommodate the calendar adjustments, RVS extended the school day to ensure the time teachers were in front of students did not change.
Pilot projects, like those supported by Alberta Education’s Emerge One-to-One laptop learning, helped to model ways of advancing 21stt Century learning. As well, coaching teams, comprised of a technology specialist, a curriculum specialist, and a student services specialist, were introduced to schools. These teams spent 12 to 18 weeks in schools, working with groups of teachers to build their knowledge of Understanding By Design, Universal Design for learning, and Balanced Assessment, and to develop units that incorporated learning outcomes from multiple subject areas and strongly emphasized inquiry and project-based learning. This coaching model has been restructured and now includes a system principal of learning and seven 21st Century learning coaches, working alongside 21st Century school leads to explore, build, track, and promote 21st Century instructional practices.
Recognizing the vision would require the reallocation of resources, the board of trustees adopted a set of principles to guide budget deliberations. The first principle stated consideration must be given to the learning needs of all students. The second principle stated RVS’ three-year plan would drive resource allocation.
“Prior to 2007 the budget drove the plan. Now the plan drives the budget,” Bass sa ys. In fact, prior to 2007, the plan was seen mostly as a compliance document, drafted by a consultant with little or no consultation beyond senior RVS staff.
These changes allowed RVS to immediately equip all teachers with a Macbook and to move all sites to wireless environments over a two-year period. It also advanced RVS’ vision to have projectors, smartboards, mimeos, or promithions mounted in every classroom and to increase bandwidth. This was a shift in expenditures, not an add-on, as RVS began decommissioning computer labs.
189
Bass sa ys the strategic approach RVS has taken allows it to run a lean organization—corporate office costs are only three per cent of the total budget. Staff knows what the organization’s priorities are and can plan accordingly. Bass thinks the division may have had greater financial challenges had it not transformed its operations.
Bass is quick to point out that technology does not define 21st Century Learning, rather it is an accelerator of learning. He gives the following example:
Peek into a social studies class where the students are studying totalitarianism. In the past you might have seen a teacher using overheads, while students took notes. At the end, the teacher would tell them what pages of the text book they should read and have them answer six questions in preparation for the next class. By now, the kids are pretty bored, one-third of them are either asleep or daydreaming.
In today’s classroom, a teacher encourages students to work together to outline everything they know about totalitarianism, making use of Google docs. Once they’ve done that, the teacher might ask them to imagine Canada as a totalitarian state. They can pull their information together any way they want and then present it to the class. Which practice sounds more interesting?
The introduction of one-on-one technology in some schools has resulted in students becoming more engaged. “Learning is more authentic, more meaningful; there are fewer disciplinary problems.” Bass gives Springbank Community High School as an example. In 2009–2010 there were 48 discipline referrals; in 2010–2011, there was one.
So what is happening now?
• RVS recently approved its 2011–2014 Plan, which takes transformation to the next level. It focuses on four main drivers: ensuring universal accessibility; a focus on personalized, authentic learning; building 21st Centur y competencies; and accelerating research and innovation.
• Guided by Policy HK: Assessment and Communication of Student Learning, students and teachers are drilling deep into learning through the RVS learning Model, which includes a shift toward more balanced assessment.
• RVS is building individual learner profiles which will be housed in a comprehensive database that will capture student achievements, abilities, aptitudes and attitudes over a 13-year period.
• High school students wanting greater access, choice, flexibility and authentic learning can do so through weConnect, technology that allows students to connect with learners and teachers at other school sites. This lets them enroll in a variety of courses/ either not available at their home school or not within their regular timetables.
With change comes challenge. RVS has experienced a number of challenges throughout its transition, the primary one being how to help teachers modify their instructional practices to support 21st Century learners. Another was how to bring parents into the fold. “We worked so hard on building our new system and preparing our teachers and learners. The one group that did not have the same attention was parents as learners,” says Bass. “We did not have a concrete plan
190
for getting their buy-in. Trustees were often asked by parents: how will RVS’ new approach be better than my own education? ”
In response, RVS has placed much more emphasis on developing parental understanding and support through the development of its new three-year plan. Parents are kept abreast of changes through consultations, school council meetings, social media, their children’s work, and the websites of RVS and the Board of Trustees.
The division also has its detractors within the Alberta Teachers’ Association, which has raised concerns about the hard work involved in transforming education.
But Bass offers no apologies, because all the work of RVS is centered on the learner. “What we are doing is in the best interests of our students. We need to unlock ourselves from old models and give learners an opportunity to learn deeply and authentically so the y can flourish. Today’s Kindergarten students will tell much different stories in 13 years than those of today’s graduates.”
The stories that follow further describe the steps RVS has taken to transform its school division, and the challenges that accompany change.
Community Engagement
(summarized from RVS website)
Without the support and engagement of its communities, it is doubtful transformation to a 21st Century learning organization would have come about so quickly. Over the past five years, RVS has engaged in two extensive, community engagement processes to build its 2008–2011and 2011–2014 Three Year Plans. The consultations helped RVS paint a picture for the future of the division, while building relationships and support within the community.
The 2008–2011Plan On April 2, 2007, the RVS Board of Trustees approved a comprehensive and collaborative process to develop a “made-in-Rocky View” 2008–2011Three Year Plan. The process saw 200 stakeholders- students, parents, teachers, trustees, administrators, politicians, and business leaders- meet for four full days over a 13-month period. They considered two questions: “What would a quality education for every student look like by the year 2011? ” and “Based on RVS’ current results, what would we need to do to ensure we arrive there? ” Stakeholders replied:
• Schools need to engage students by making what and how they learn relevant to their world.
• Students need to be taught how to think critically and become self-directed learners. • Students need to learn how to understand, connect, and contribute to a global community.
In Ma y 2008 the collaborative process concluded with a 2008–2011Three Year Plan that featured a new mission, vision, and motto, six goals, 21outcomes, and 79 strategies. Its theme, “Engaging 21st Century Learners, “ solidified a shared vision, whereby all members of RVS’ school communities were considered “learners.” The six goals were:
191
• Learners have their basic and diverse needs met. • Learners are competent, qualified, and dedicated. • Learners are civic, social, and environmental stewards. • Learning opportunities are distinct, continuous, and systematic. • Instruction challenges and engages the learner. • Learners work in 21st century learning environments.
The division then communicated a commitment to maintain the plan for a full three-year period. It published a “Portrait of a 21st Century Learner” and placed it in every building in RVS.
The 2011–2014 Plan Between February and April, 2011, RVS launched an extensive, multi-faceted consultation to develop its 2011–2014 Three Year Plan, increasing the level and variety of engagement from that of the 2008–2011Three Year Plan.
The board of trustees directed the superintendent to bring both large and small stakeholder groups together in face-to-face settings to refine the 2008–2011Plan and to provide input in o strategies to build a 21st Century Learning organization. The use of social media was approved to help build awareness of the initiative. Provided below is an overview of the process used in building RVS’ 2011–2014 Three Year Plan.
Goal, Outcome and Performance Measure Review—In November 2010, RVS’ leadership team, comprised of the board of trustees, senior executive, directors, principals and assistant principals, gathered for one day to review the 2008-2011Plan. It was refined from six goals, 23 measures, to four goals, 16 outcomes. In December, new performance measures were developed by RVS’ directors and circulated to school administrators for feedback.
Community Engagement Meeting—RVS launched its community engagement on Valentine’s Day 2011. The purpose of the meeting was to explore how parents, businesses and the broader community could pla y a more sustainable role in public education. Through the efforts of schools, RVS was able to secure the attendance of 70 participants. A zoomerang surve y distributed to participants generated 51responses. Of the 51responses, 94 per cent said they would attend the next community engagement meeting and 93 per cent expressed satisfaction with the overall experience.
Focus Groups—As demonstrated by the government through its Inspiring Education, Setting the Direction and Speak Out forums, RVS believed it important to engage groups of stakeholders where they could best provide feedback. For example, classroom teachers would be best involved in discussions to develop strategies focussed on assessment and learning, while service providers could offer advice on developing strategies for wrap-around child supports. To this end, 17 focus groups, involving over 200 staff, service providers, parents and students, were held in February and March. The focus groups were hosted by trustees and directors from the communications, human resources, learning and schools departments. All feedback formed the basis for the strategies which appear in the plan.
192
Speak Out Forums—RVS asked its high school and middle school student leaders to organize and participate in Speak Out forums at their individual school/home community. Over the course of six weeks, seven out of nine high schools held Speak Out Forums. A middle school Speak Out Forum also was held. Feedback gathered from these forums was shared with all schools and used to develop strategies in the plan.
Social Media—Through the use of a Twitter account, RVS shared its planning initiative and encouraged community participation on its Facebook page and blog site. Over the course of six weeks, RVS’ Twitter account attracted 237 followers, generated a “klout” of 40 (45 being an indicator of “influential” on the web) and tweeted 142 messages relating to RVS’ 21st Century pursuit. The use of Twitter at the jurisdictional level also led to over 30 staff members signing up to help Tweet about 21st Century learning. RVS’ blog site, which currently features 46 blogs covering 21st Century teaching and learning, was visited over 13, 500 times and its Facebook page, which had minimal traffic, attracted 117 “friends of/like RVS,” with 232 monthly active users.
School Education Plans—To bring all school communities into alignment, RVS’ 2011–2012 School Education Plan (SEP) Manual was revised to reflect the new goal structure and released to administrators in March, 2011.
Feedback from the community engagement process has been incorporated into the 2011–2014 Three Year Plan.
Branding RVS as a 21st Century Organization
… leadership and teaching … Staff of Rocky View Schools (RVS) recently attended a job fair in Nova Scotia. They were barely able to set up before the prospects formed a line in front of their booth. What were they looking for? Jobs? Not really, every booth had them. They were looking for careers, good ones.
Obviously the prospects had heard something about Rocky View Schools. So how do you build an organization that is noticed clear across the nation? One way is from the bottom up.
In RVS it has a lot to do with alignment. “We use the same messages wherever we go,” says Susan Williams, associate superintendent of human resources. “We make very clear what we are looking for from applicants and staff. We aren’t looking for ‘stand and deliver’ people. We want people who can work in teams, who understand and can deliver inquiry-based learning.”
“All applicants and staff—whether teachers, administrators or support staff—must be passionate about students. They must demonstrate character, passion and collaboration. They must facilitate learning and be open to technology.”
The messages articulated by Williams are shared inside and outside of the organization. It all started with the division’s rebirth in 2008: mission, vision, motto, belief statements, logo, and
193
colours. Everything changed with the launch of a new made-in-RVS three-year plan focused on transforming RVS’s learning environments to meet the needs of today’s digital learners.
Because staff helped develop the vision and plan, as did the school community, all have ownership. This ownership makes everyone a spokesperson for the plan. The RVS approach to 21st Century Learning is reinforced in publications, meetings with educational institutions, and other organizations. Those messages are carried through in its recruitment process and in discussions with applicants to RVS.
Applicants are asked to answer two key questions when they appl y online:
• What do you believe about 21st Century Learning? • Why do you want to work for Rocky View Schools?
RVS wants to know that applicants have done their research and understand and embrace the approach RVS is taking. Teacher applicants must be familiar with ISTE Net and Teaching Quality Standards. The y also must be willing to work “really hard” according to Williams. RVS looks for these qualities when it conducts reference checks. “RVS is more than a job; it’s a passion. Our goal is to help people excel,” says Williams.
Human resources also works closely with educational institutions to ensure student teachers placed in RVS are the right fit. Once student teachers complete their placements, they automatically get an interview with the division as an acknowledgement of their time spent with them.
When RVS launched its three-year plan for a transformed school division, it worked to ensure the best fit for existing staff. Williams notes that it can be difficult moving people from traditional roles of teaching to new ones, and this requires a huge investment of time.
“Sometimes you need to make tough decisions to ensure people are in the right spot. We do help people prepare as they apply for transfers. We look at the needs of our division and determine the right fit, recognizing this can be unbelievably time-consuming. But the rewards are immense. It order to successfully place people in the right positions, HR staff need to be trusted and skilled conversationalists.”
Once RVS felt it had the right people on the bus it turned its attention to offering professional learning opportunities that support the evolution of a 21st Century Learning organization. All teachers and support staff develop annual growth plans or annual individual learning plans, which must align with the three-year plan.
Communities of Practice—Three out of 10 professional learning days are devoted to communities of practice (COP). RVS has 130 communities of practice that have been initiated by both teachers and support staff. On those days, groups of teachers share promising practices and develop capacity. The y examine curriculum and share pedagogy. A COP working group is currently developing an electronic space for RVS that will act as a community registry, a workspace in real time, and a repository for research-based projects and best practices. Initially
194
communities of practice were supported by central office-invites, meeting setups, tracking of members. That level of support has diminished over time with staff taking more responsibility for their setup and ongoing operation.
195
Evidence of Success This year, 11 of 15 first-year teachers have been nominated for the ASBA Edwin Parr Teacher Award for outstanding new teacher.
And the 2010–11 staff survey shows that among all employee groups, 89 per cent of RVS staff believes they have the opportunity to lead. Schools, too, are nurturing the value of leadership by offering a plethora of student leadership programs.
Through an e-portal dedicated to the promotion of professional learning opportunities, all staff are kept abreast of the current offerings provided by regional and provincial partners, such as the Calgar y Regional Consortium. A partnership with Bow Valle y College gives support staff access to online courses covering topics such as child development, working exceptionalities and editing in the workplace.
Another way to build a school division is getting good people at the top-developing leadership within the organization. Candidates applying for the position of principal are subject to a rigorous hiring process, which asks them to present their philosophy on 21st Century Learning. Once hired, principals must demonstrate their school’s alignment with RVS’ three-year plan in meetings with senior executive. As well, every year, senior executive, principals and assistant principals create evidence-based portfolios for their performance evaluations.
“Our strength is really in our principals, and building their capacity has been a focus,” states Superintendent Greg Bass. “We give them opportunities to co-construct the vision, and we hold them to high standards, having them demonstrate their abilities for other positions and movement within the system.”
Leadership Development
RVS has a number of leadership initiatives. The programs not onl y help people develop the skills and confidence they need to make a difference in the organization, but are an important part of succession planning at RVS.
Administrative Leadership Program—this program has five leadership streams and is targeted at aspiring leaders, candidates in RVS’ administrative pool, newly appointed principals and assistant-principals, existing school-based administrative teams and veteran administrators. Candidates need to have a reference from a principal to participate in the program. When the division hires externally, RVS expects new hires to go through the leadership development process as well. Graduates from this program are positioned to eventually become principals and assistant principals.
Covey Leadership Programs—all principals and leaders within the division are required to take Covey’s Seven Habits of Effective People and Great Leaders, Great Teams, Great Results training.
196
University of Lethbridge Master’s Degree (Leadership)—the University of Lethbridge has developed a special cohort for RVS staff interested in earning a master’s degree with a focus on leadership. Right now 25 field staff are enrolled in the program. While RVS does not pay for the program, it supports staff to take it, as well as supporting other staff who take master and doctorate programs.
Regular leadership meetings–every two months, RVS holds a full-day Leadership Team Meeting.
Recognition of potential leaders—Principals are asked to recognize and encourage leadership, asking staff to take the next step “take roadblocks out of the way so they can continue along their career path,” says Williams.
For example, with five new schools scheduled to open by 2015, the division is taking a team approach to succession planning b y establishing an assistant principal pool. As part of this development process, all administrators are being asked to help identify and recommend in writing individuals who they believe would be well-suited to play a leadership role in RVS’ future. Also, teachers interested in the role are encouraged to discuss career aspirations with their school administrators. To ensure there are a good number of people in the pool for coming years, there will be another posting for the assistant principal pool in the near future.
Leadership is also developed less formally:
Superintendent Working Committees—there are eight superintendent working committees made up of principals, assistant principals, 21st Century learning facilitators, and leads from the Education Centre. The superintendent provides a mandate letter based on the three-year plan to the chair of the committee and the committee develops actions plans related to the strategies embedded in the plan. Every spring, RVS sends out an invitation to volunteer for a committee. It is designed to be rotational; some members stay a couple years, and some move on earlier.
Superintendent Greg Bass states: “I need their help to develop procedures and to align processes that support 21st C teaching and learning. Empowering these teams has brought greater focus and engagement across the division.”
Each committee reports progress to the superintendent, verbally at leadership Team Meetings and in writing at the end of the year.
Challenges that have arisen. While much of the transformation has occurred in a relatively short period of time—four years—Williams says that looking back, she wanted change to happen faster. She points to the tremendous amount of time and energy needed from staff. Williams doesn’t have a simple answer to this challenge, other than to say “we need to ensure balance— many of our employees are in or are approaching the sandwich generation. They need to balance life at work and life at home.”
And what about the role of government? Williams is positive about the role of Alberta Education in the transformation process. But she has some suggestions. She thinks the province could help
197
identify exemplary teachers who could serve as learning coaches in the classroom; who are able to work side-by-side with other teachers. Not just new teachers, but teachers at any age or stage of their career.
She also says teachers need to be supported to be risk-takers. They must be allowed to be more vulnerable in their roles, and risk-taking needs to be modelled from the top. They must know they won’t be reprimanded for trying something different.
Superintendent Greg Bass agrees, “As long as I know that staff members are taking risks in the best interests of students, and they can demonstrate that data-driven decision, I’m okay. If you fall flat, that’s fine—let’s learn from it to get stronger.”
Personalized Learning
… RVS Learning Model, learning facilitators, technology and more …
“Collaboration is the new competition,” according to David Morris, associate superintendent of learning for RVS. In an age when so much information is free for all, competitive advantage is gained b y those who learn to collaborate. In the best collaborations, everyone brings their own talents to the table.
It follows that in school students are recognized to have different talents, different ways of learning. Some are visual, some are auditory, some learn by doing, and still others prefer to learn by reading and writing. At RVS, the key to learning and teaching is the “RVS Learning Model. “The intent of the model is to help students get to know themselves as learners and to personalize
their learning in a variety of ways.
The RVS Learning Model: How Learning is Personalized
‘‘constructivist”; means students are 1ts in the co-construction) of Guided by the tenants 1 Model, which on design that is ect-based, students nonstrate their ·iety of ways. Both ummative ? used to ensure ·tacognitive about
198
At the centre of the model is the learner. This can be any member of the school community— students, teachers, principals, support staff, parents. All stakeholders can be considered learners.
Around the learner are three educational approaches that interact with one another:
• Understanding by Design (UbD) guides teachers in the instructional planning process. More specifically, UbD focuses on 11teaching for understanding.” Teachers are encouraged to design inquiry-based lessons that involve students in the construction of learning. UbD helps teachers to clarify learning goals, develop assessment tools, and craft engaging, authentic learning activities.
• Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a set of principles for curriculum development
that give all individuals equal opportunities to learn. It provides a blueprint for creating instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments that work for everyone—not a single, one-size-fits-all solution, rather flexible approaches that can be customized and adjusted for individual needs. Ultimately it increases access to learning by reducing physical, cognitive, intellectual, and organizational barriers to learning. It allows for: Multiple means of representation to give learners various ways of acquiring
information and knowledge, Multiple means of expression and expression give learners alternatives for
demonstrating what they know, and Multiple means of engagement to tap into learners’ interests, challenge them
appropriately, and motivate them to learn.
It also supports inclusion in the classroom. “With Universal Design for Learning, learning must be accessible to all/’ says Morris. “For example, we look at adaptive technologies that help students with learning challenges. A text-to-speech device can help students with writing processing problems. “
• Balanced Assessment allows teachers to check that understanding is in place and that
learning is enhanced through continuous feedback.
Following a year-long process of school-based consultation, the RVS Board approved a more holistic approach to assessment which is ongoing, meaningful, and consistent. It emplo ys three core strategies:
• Pre-assessment—assessing where students are at from the beginning. Teachers can then differentiate instruction to address individual learner needs.
• Assessment for learning—ongoing da y-to-day assessment which guides instruction and next steps.
• Assessment of learning—occurs at the end of the learning cycle; it determines where students are in relation to the curriculum.
It is hoped that balanced assessment will serve to guide students as they learn. “As we develop more inquiry-based learning and provide balanced assessment, students will take more ownership and become more self-directed. We need to assess those types of problem-solving skills,” says Morris. “Right now we have a superintendent working committee building new forms of
199
assessment. In the future there may be no report cards; just access to ongoing reporting through our student information system, PowerSchool.”
The outer ring of the Learning Model supports the three key approaches of the inner ring and reflects current, research-based instructional approaches: multiple literacies; critical, creative and complex thinking; mind tools (technologies that engage critical thinking); metacognitive instruction (individual knowledge of one’s own learning processes); and cooperative/ collaborative learning.
The RVS Learning Model: How it is implemented Over the last three years, RVS’ Learning Department has continutously reorganized itself to build teachers’ competencies to support the Learning Model and 21st Century Learning. In 2008, it established 21st Century Learning facilitators and embedded coaching teams. These teams, comprised of a technology specialist, a curriculum specialist, and a student services specialist, spent 12–18 weeks in schools, working with groups of teachers to build their knowledge of Understanding by Design, Universal Design for Learning, and Balanced Assessment. They also helped teachers develop units that establish learning outcomes from multiple subject areas and emphasize inquiry and project-based learning.
This coaching model has now evolved to include a principal of learning and seven 21st Century Learning coaches, who work alongside 21st Century school leads to explore, build, track, and promote 21st Century instructional practices. RVS also has collapsed all student and health- related services into one branch to better enable RVS to coordinate wrap-around services and set the stage for a more inclusive learning environment.
“One of the challenges in this process has been getting the right structure of coaching support, so that schools feel they are getting the benefits of change,” sa ys Morris. To address this, RVS has brought in learning coaches, who have skills in emerging technology and inquiry-based learning.
Morris also recognizes that there is a need to make sure parents understand the changes in the division as well, particularly as the y relate to competency-based learning, technology, and assessment. With the development of RVS’ second three-year plan (2011–14) more emphasis is place on parental education.
A superintendent working committee is currently building a template for an individual learner profile and an electronic means of recording and transferring the profiles between classrooms and schools. The actual profiles will be completed by students and teachers, and will allow for better learning transitions, better understanding of students by teachers, and better tracking of student projects and performance. RVS will pilot the individual learner profile with a few schools in September 2012, with full implementation in 2013.
Innovative Technology Fund RVS set up a fund to encourage schools to explore new technologies and how technology can improve learning. So far, $160, 000 has been awarded to 12 schools for 13 projects. Projects
200
must connect to 21st Century Learning, the RVS three-year plan and the school’s education plan. Schools must share their project findings by podcast or video.
The RVS Learning Model: Using Technology At RVS, technology is not the end in itself, but an accelerator in the transformation to a 21st Century Learning environment. It pla ys a growing role in assisting teachers to fully engage students, and it supports learning that is personalized, collaborative and self-assessed.
Software extends learning: Reflecting RVS’ 11any time, any place, an y path, any pace” mantra, Google apps, which provides for student email, have been launched along with Desire to Learn, Moodle, Apple Wiki, Bridget, ePearl, Podcast Producer, Mahara, RVS Tube, students blogs and videoconferencing.
Technology changes relationships: The use of interactive white board technologies, iPads, iPods, digital cameras and laptops continue to engage students and teachers in collaborative, project-based learning, where self-assessment is the norm. With the implementation of RVS’ content management system Plone and RVS’ learning management system Moodle, over 90 per cent of teachers are now publishing learning content online, and 10 to 15 per cent are ready to create more inclusive learning environments.
Technology infrastructure is put in place: All of this comes on top of an earlier decision to equip all teachers with a Macbook and move all school sites to a wireless environment.
Already three high schools are fully one-to-one schools with students bringing their own devices. Two other high schools and two middle schools are contemplating moving to this model. RVS anticipates it will be able to move all its schools to personally owned devices over the next few years.
RVS has also developed two resource collections for the division. They are a starting point for teachers to find interdisciplinary/cross-curricular collections of materials. Teachers can access the database on the RVS homepage and search b y subject, level, type of activity, and other categories. The RVS’ Resource Server houses various forms of content including support materials, software training, templates, IMS materials, and teacher created lessons and units.
Other initiatives to advance personalized learning are:
• WeConnect uses technology like video conferencing, Elluminate, D2L, Moodle, email and wikis to allow students to pick up courses not in their timeslots or not offered in their schools- 1200 students take advantage of courses like art and languages. For example, at Springbank High School, an art teacher provides instruction to 110 students onsite, and to students at two other schools through Moodle. Students can listen and watch the teacher while she demonstrates different art techniques like stretching a canvas.
• Many high school teachers use podcasting to record their lessons. This gives absent students an opportunity to view what they missed and for all students to revisit the lesson at any time.
201
• A new TeacherPlus series explores a number of topics for teachers and administrators: differentiation; creating optimal learning environments; student engagement; designing instruction and curriculum; and others. The series is available for after-hours review.
The role of the province RVS is looking forward to the province’s curriculum redesign. “We need to focus on the big concepts and reduce the number of specific outcomes in the curriculum documents,” says Morris. “This will allow teachers to get at the competencies and still ensure the intent of the curriculum is taught. I recently attended the curriculum re-design update in Edmonton. Some of the presentations on assessment really seem on track.”
Morris also has praise for the province’s Framework for Student Learning (model and t document). “We have used our Learning Model combined with our portrait of the 21st Century learner to . . . support the framework.”
On Action on Inclusion, he suggests the province use change agents to further roll out the initiative. “If we can communicate the learning from these groups in an easy and searchable web environment we can accelerate this initiative throughout the province. There is already lots of good work being done.”
Morris would like to see more sharing of resources across the province—possibly an electronic platform that shares research and digital resource collections. Right now RVS is working with four other school divisions to develop an object repository. “Perhaps the province could support this initiative more broadly.”
Inclusive Education
At Glenbow Elementary School in Cochrane, four classes of Grade 3 students are being supported in an environment which fosters and encourages independent learning in reading and writing. However, they have var ying levels of literacy—between Kindergarten and Grade 5. How does inclusive education work for them?
They are placed in flexible, levelled literacy groups based on assessment and evaluations, and they are supported by a learning support team of educators that includes classroom teachers, support staff and a learning coach. The team works together to determine the level and intensity of support a student needs to be successful. It meets often to review data, share best practices, explore supportive technology, and form and reform groups of students to ensure they get the right level of support.
Glenbow’s approach is seeded in the RVS change agent imitative which focuses on building Universal learning Environments. By definition, a Universal Learning Environment ensures the personalization of learning b y providing the physical environment and the pedagogical practices that respond to the identified needs of each learner.
RVS already had taken steps to implement an inclusive education system as part of its 2008– 2011Three Year Plan. It spent three years recalibrating its student support services to give all
202
students access to a continuum of supports and services: universal, targeted and specialized, dependent on individual needs.
In 2011 RVS reframed this inclusive model under the umbrella of a Universal learning Environment and dedicated an entire goal in its 2011-2014 Three Year Plan to identifying and meeting the individual learning interests, preferences, and needs of learners. As outlined in “Goal One: learners have their individual needs met,” a variety of strategies are being employed to provide schools with the tools they need to ensure learning environments are universally accessible: the RVS Learning Model, IPPS, technology and provincial programs like Success in Schools for Children and Youth in Care and Children and Youth with Complex Needs.
In July 2011, RVS and 12 other school divisions were designated “change agents” for Alberta Education’s Action on Inclusion initiative. RVS received $429, 000 in funding to support the development of prototypes that would assist both RVS and the province to implement and share inclusive education best practices.
Six RVS schools are participating in the change agent project. The schools are engaged in action-based research projects that explore the personalization of learning, learner profiles, student portfolios and emerging technologies. ‘We are creating learning environments that are responsive to the needs of the individual learner,” according to Joan Kollewyn, 21st Century Learning Specialist–Technology, and Oonagh Graham, Learning Specialist.
RVS Learning Model According to Oonagh Graham, learning specialist, “Our focus is to create an inclusive learning environment, where the child is at the centre of a continuum of wrap-around services and supports.” RVS has created an online course, Universal Design for Learning, available for all staff. The course helps participants gain a better understanding of UDL and how to create accessible learning for all students. RVS is also building a data-base of learning tools to support teachers.
IPPs RVS has its own system to create individualized program plans (IPPs) for RV students with identified specific learning needs. This system is online and accessible at all school sites. However, the goal is to create individual learning plans for all learners in RVS, not just those with identified learning needs. This reinforces the RVS belief that all learners are unique and require different supports to reach their full potential. This, in turn, assists RVS to support success for all learners.
Learner Profiles The Superintendent Working Committee–Learning has recentl y created a template for an individual learner profile and an electronic means of recording and transferring these profiles between classrooms and schools. The actual profiles will be populated by teachers and potentially b y students in upper grades, and the profiles will allow for a deeper understanding of the uniqueness, literacy levels, interests, preferences and needs of each learner. RVS will pilot the individual learner profile with schools in September 2012, with full implementation in 2013.
203
Technology RVS employs a number of devices, software and emerging technologies to create universally accessible classrooms. Technology extends learning, enhances collaboration, and engages learners. It supports learners who may require scaffolding or support in their learning, and also gives learners choice in their day-to-day learning activities both inside and outside of the school environment.
Province RVS supports the province’s Success in Schools for Children and Youth in Care and the Children and Youth with Complex Needs cross-ministry initiatives. These initiatives call on the support of multiple support systems, ministries, agencies and learning team members to meet the complex learning needs of some students. Like the RVS Learning Model, the student is at the centre1 the focus of attention for any and all supports required for the student to be successful. This work, like that described in the change agent projects, requires high levels of collaboration, commitment and sharing of best practices. RVS is committed to this collaborative wraparound support for its learners.
With change comes challenge. Kollewyn and Graham identify two primary challenges to creating an inclusive learning environment for RVS students:
1) Space—RVS is one of the fastest growing divisions in the province. It is continually pressured to find adequate space to meet the needs of its growing student population.
2) Complexity of learning needs—An increasing complexity of learning needs requires a highl y flexible and responsive system of support.
Research: New Riches for RVS
John Burger, director of schools at RVS, says research will “shift RVS from a data-rich/ information-poor organization to one that is both data and information rich.” In fact, RVS has taken steps to become a research organization, ensuring its projects include research as a stimulant for innovation and further development.
All this data and research might be unwanted riches to some at RVS, and Burger is aware of the concern. “Because data creates a high degree of transparency, some may not be comfortable using it. That’s wh y we need conversations about how we deal with data, its value to the organization, and we need to identify and work with those supporting its use.”
To ensure research is relevant and done well, the organization has a small three-member Research Review Committee. Other individuals attend when the committee needs more information on research methodology, ethical issues, and/or content expertise. The committee reviews proposals for individual research, often at the master’s and PhD levels, RVS-related research, course-based assignments and collaborative research.
The RVS Learning Model is strongly based on research, as is PLAI Screening and other tools used by RVS to facilitate student success.
204
The committee also has a strong commitment to sharing research and building internal research capacity within the organization. The division recently added web links to completed research and high interest websites. Research-related news is included in newsletter updates and leadership teams are notified of research developments. To build internal research capacity, RVS recently purchased a statistical/analytical tool called SPSS (originally Statistical Package for Social Sciences) for head office and plans to introduce it to schools in the future. It is also holding sessions with new assistant principals on how the Principal Quality Standards can be supported through research.
In its shift to a more research-based organization, RVS must manage the data that facilitates research. The committee is identifying staff with skills in understanding and managing data and providing them training. RVS is:
• building capacity in data analysis with school-based administrators and leaders • putting data into a context where it is perceived as useful and empowering • helping staff to understand ways data can be used • identifying how much organizational time and effort should go into data collection and
analysis Role of the province Many of RVS research-related initiatives build on work being done in Alberta Education:
• Eight schools participated in the Tell Them From Me survey—currently the findings are being used to define student needs.
• Three schools have completed value-added school reviews according to the guidelines set
out by Alberta Education. The information is used to identify strengths and weaknesses of schools. Burger is hoping to eventually develop the internal capacity to review all the schools in the division.
• RVS was recently awarded a $10, 000 grant from the Alberta Healthy School Community
Wellness Fund (funded by Alberta Education and AHW) for its Rocky View Wellness Project. The grant will support RVS’ action research on innovative ways to measure students’ affective school experience and connectivity to school using the new Student Orientation to Schools Questionnaire (SOS-Q).
Burger represents the College of School Superintendents on the province’s Education Research Partnership Committee, further linking the work of RVS to the provincial mandate.
Is there anything Alberta Education could do to further support RVS and other school divisions? Burger considers the Alberta Education decision to eliminate submission of Grade level of Achievement (GLA) data to Alberta Education a “huge setback.” In doing so, he feels the province lost an opportunity to provide leadership and support for holistic assessment. He believes both Alberta Advanced Education and Education could do more to build assessment skills and practices, at both the pre-service and graduate levels, particularly those related to holistic assessment. Alberta Education should clearly identify multiple ways to support research,
205
such as generate rich data, in addition to the work done by Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (AIS I).
Burger also says government should ensure that the College of Alberta School Superintendents (CASS) and Principal Quality Standards are grounded in a good understanding of data use. He believes CASS should be recognized as a professional body that can support the growth and development of research. RVS is also actively engaged in research-related projects:
• With the Covey Institute, it is participating in the evaluation of the Leader in Me program based on the Seven Habits of Successful People.
• RVS staff is successfully engaging the national and international research communities through conferences like the Hawaii International Conference on Education and the American Educational Research Association annual conference.
• Burger demonstrates a personal commitment to research. In 2011 he co-authored chapters in two books related to leadership: the International Handbook For Leadership For Learning, and Leading Student Assessment.
• This summer, RVS, in partnership with Thompson Rivers University and the University of Calgary, will host a two-day conference about data-informed leadership. It will invite 100 people, including a dozen researchers from across North America. They will define current research supporting data-informed leadership.
FNMI Student Success Of the 18, 000 students attending Rock y View Schools there are 547 who self-identify as First Nations, Metis or Inuit (FNMI) and an additional75 students who attend from the Morley Reserve near Cochrane. Yet there are FNMI students who don’t identify themselves as FNMI when completing their school registration forms. Why don’t the y?
It could be that students are concerned about being labelled. In Alberta, FNMI students as a whole receive lower marks and are less likely to complete high school. It is unfortunate, as they might not be aware that self-identification brings more support for the student and the school.
Teresa Cardinal, FNMI program specialist at RVS, sees her job as helping schools to better engage and support FNMI students so that they can achieve success. Relatively new to her position, Cardinal knows her job is not an easy one. RVS faces the same challenges other divisions face to make education more meaningful to FNMI students. An FNMI Advisor y Committee meets every five to six weeks to provide guidance and recommendations on serving this population of students. It has recently been retooled to focus less on sharing of resources and more on increasing parental engagement and success for Aboriginal students. In fact, the committee’s upcoming May meeting will have both parental and student involvement, with invites coming from the schools.
206
“Why aren’t we teaching powwow dancing instead of line dancing and square dancing in our schools?” Teresa Cardinal
Some other RVS initiatives:
• This fall, with the support of Big Brothers and Big Sisters, RVS will introduce a Big- Middle- Little mentoring program in Airdrie schools. Using a four generation model, an Elder will assist with the programming and work with three generations of students to provide cultural knowledge, healing, and language exposure. The “big” will be an Aboriginal post- secondary student, the “middle” will be an Aboriginal high school student and the “little” will be an Aboriginal elementary student.
• RVS is participating in a Me to We program, a Sacred Circle Aboriginal Leadership program designed to meet the needs of Aboriginal youth. A facilitator from BC will visit the division from August 28–September 1, 2012, to hold workshops with 25 high school students, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. The workshops with follow the Circle of Courage model- belonging, mastery, independence, and generosity. The central theme of this model is that a set of shared values must exist in any community to create environments that ultimately benefit all. Students will then be connected to Elders and /or leaders in the community. Each student will come up with a community action plan, which can be can be anything from volunteering at a community centre or coaching a team, to becoming a better sister. At the end the community is invited to come in and celebrate the students’ successes. This will be the first time the Me to We program will be delivered in Southern Alberta.
• Students (and families) who attend Bert Church and George McDougall High Schools in Airdrie and Chestermere High School have opportunities to improve mental health through the Stepping Stones to Mental Health for Youth project (by Alberta Health and Wellness under the auspices of Alberta Mental Health Board in collaboration with Alberta Learning). Strategies to address the needs of students and families are implemented by a project coordinator, student success coaches, a cultural diversity specialist and a youth addictions specialist. Aboriginal high school students serve as advisors for Aboriginal youth. Part of the program encourages students to undertake projects related to their culture-build drums, teepees, participate in outdoor education and smudging ceremonies. While the program is Aboriginal focused, it is open to all students. According to Cardinal, Aboriginal youth, particularly those in foster care, benefit enormously for this type of program.
• Through committee work, Cardinal participates in the United Way’s Full Circle Implementation Team, Youth Centre Feasibility Study, and the Aboriginal Youth Education Priority Team.
Challenges and role of the province “As a division-manager, it’s about visiting schools to show them where I can add value,” says Cardinal. “Individual schools have pockets of good programming. However, students and programs are quite spread out over the division. My goal is to connect those pockets, and enhance and support the programming alread y there.”
207
Cardinal also notes that FNMI learning initiatives can lose momentum due to a lack of teacher engagement. In example, an FNMI Community of Practice (COP) was created but then disbanded. However, in the Fall 2012 teachers in six schools will be able to participate in a community of practice that is a partnership between the University of Calgary and the Calgar y Regional Consortium. The COP will focus on achieving a better understanding of Aboriginal cultural differences and perspectives. It also will serve as an action research project to increase student engagement through enhanced teaching practice.
Cardinal praises Alberta Education for its work in advancing FNMI learning opportunities. In particular, she notes that ministry Goal 3: Success for First Nations, Metis and Inuit students has helped focus attention on FNMI needs, including more parental engagement. She adds that RVS has included a similar goal in its three-year plan.
Cardinal also acknowledges Alberta Education’s work to introduce more Aboriginal content into the curriculum. But she says there remains a disconnect between curriculum and the classroom. She says educators need to be supported to engage in personal learning that inspires self- reflection, challenges perspectives and supports them to use authentic FNMI learning in the classroom.
Another challenge is ensuring Aboriginal culture is recognized in all areas of the curriculum, not just social studies. Curriculum needs to be designed to allow for greater authentic learning experiences and real-life examples, not forced outcomes that often are not relevant. Cardinal asks, “Why can’t we use teepees to teach children about angles? ” In this case, the example is cross-curricular, not random. And, in fact, RVS has started to post its own authentic science examples on the Moodle website.
She has a couple more suggestions. “There is so much department information out there—for people in the field it’s hard to distill, to determine what would be useful, what is not. Sometimes I get overwhelmed with information.” Cardinal says it would be helpful if the province could vet and streamline information, and prioritize programs and initiatives.
Cardinal also suggests that school registration forms should better outline the intent behind self- identification. She suggests reframing the explanation so respondents clearly understand that with self-identification comes more support for the student/school.
Approach to Early Learning
… preschool intervention, Kindergarten … Preschool Intervention: unable to talk or interact Lynda Hemsworth, school psychologist and supervisor of early intervention at Rocky View Schools (RVS), tells a story that she has seen many times: A young girl is headed for preschool, but is unable to talk or interact with others. She has severe disabilities.
Alberta Health Services identified the child as a candidate for the Rocky View Schools preschool intervention program. Her parents brought her in to one of the two schools that offer it—R. J.
208
Hawkey in Airdrie or Glenbow Elementary in Cochrane. The program, which provides services for as many as 13 children, runs for two hours and 45 minutes each day, for four days per week.
Unable to talk or interact, how does she cope? Her teacher, possessing a background in special education and early childhood intervention, has her play. Her play emphasizes language enrichment as a key factor in socialization.
During snack time, an occupational therapist might help her open containers, and later she is placed in a group to develop her social skills. There are speech-language pathologists and physical therapists too. This child also might receive support from Alberta Children’s Hospital, medical personnel, outside agencies, and the Calgary Health Authority.
The child’s family is engaged in regularly scheduled parent-child information sessions run by the program’s staff. Sometimes these meetings occur at school, sometimes at home, depending on the child’s needs. Parents also are invited to join their child’s teacher, therapists, and assistants in the development of an Individual Program Plan (IPP) to define learning goals.
“In our program there is tender, loving care. It’s where parents and children can feel safe because they know we care about their child,” says Hemsworth.
“A year later, these children can be leaders in the preschool program—talkative, engaged and developing new skills. When these children go on to Kindergarten, some of them may even be reclassified as having mild to moderate needs.”
RVS’ Preschool Intervention Program supports the following children to prepare for school:
• children aged 2½ to five-years old with severe developmental needs • children aged 3½ to five-years old with mild to moderate needs • children aged 3½ to five-years old who are English Language Learners • children aged 3½ to five-years old who are typical learners (if space is available)
RVS will be opening a third strand of the program in Chestermere in September 2012.
In Kindergarten, universal screening and more At RVS there are 1,400 Kindergarten children and 45 Kindergarten teachers in 65 classrooms.
Hemsworth notes that children come to Kindergarten with a huge range of abilities. Some children can already read, some haven’t opened a book. For that reason, RVS has developed its own approach to screening in Kindergarten called PLAI (Programming for learning and Instruction). It has three steps:
• Universal screening—A Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) form is
sent home with all students at the beginning of the Kindergarten year. The one-page questionnaire allows parents, regardless of differences in education, socioeconomic status, and child-rearing experience, to raise concerns about the child’s development and behaviour. The form is available in a number of languages, which meets the needs of
209
many parents in RVS. Screening can also identify children with strong skills who need enriched programs.
• Targeted screening—The results of the PEDs and/or teacher observation may prompt a
classroom based screening of some students using the Brigance Screen II. This screen assists the teacher to identify areas of strength and weakness such a possible language, fine motor or general learning dela ys. Some teachers in RVS screen all their students using the Brigance in order to get a complete picture of student needs. This helps guide their instruction.
• Specialized screening—Some children may benefit from a more specific speech/
language and/or occupational therapy screen. A referral will be made to a therapist to determine if further support is needed. The therapist is in frequent contact with Hemsworth, who is responsible for Program Unit Funding (PUF). If the child is identified as having mild/moderate needs, the teacher and therapists develop a plan to support the child. If the child meets criteria for PUF (severe needs), then funding is accessed and the appropriate supports are put in place. These include a classroom learning plan and additional services as applicable.
The RVS Kindergarten program builds on what children have already learned at home and in the community. Programming is based on Alberta Education’s Kindergarten Program Statement.
Through play, the program allows children to develop social, problem-solving, and interpersonal skills. Children who finish the program are ready for 215 Century learning.
t
How RVS developed PLAI In 2006–07, Earl y Intervention asked for volunteers from its Kindergarten teachers to work on a “screening’’ committee. A representative from the Grades 1–12 learning Specialists’ Team also joined. They met four times over the year and evaluated the various screening tools available. They determined they would adopt a three-step process for Kindergarten screening, in keeping with the “Response to Intervention” process that speech-language pathologists and occupational therapists were already working on. The teachers in the working group presented their plan to all the Kindergarten teachers in the spring of 2007.
In the fall, an in-service familiarized the Kindergarten teachers with the two screening tools that had been chosen (PEDS and Brignace Screen II). Early Intervention supplied materials for each school. As well, the two school psychologists visited each Kindergarten teacher in the district to assist them to understand the new process.
Early Intervention then created a survey to get feedback on the new screening process. Early Intervention and five principals met to revise the survey and then again to review the results. The results were shared with the larger administrative group and with Kindergarten teachers. They determined no changes needed to be made. This screening process has been used ever since.
Other Initiatives
210
• When Hemsworth took on the role of supervisor of early intervention six years ago there were a number of speech-language pathologists and occupational therapists working on contract. To ensure the same therapists were in the classrooms on a regular basis, Hemsworth largely discontinued the contracts and hired full-time division pathologists/ therapists. Each speech-language pathologist has an assistant who helps in the classroom. The Early Intervention Team includes speech-language pathologists, speech-language teaching assistants and occupational therapists.
• Through its own budget, RVS provided an additional year of speech/language services to children, who meet the criteria of PUF when they entered Grade 1.
• Kindergarten teachers get specialized training each year to help them to identify children with language and motor skill difficulties. Early identification means pathologists can start working with the children right away; children are not waiting for help.
• Speech-language pathologists run a playtime centre once a month in some Kindergarten classes, so all students can benefit from their expertise. They use fun activities to develop language skills.
• RVS is creating Early Childhood Development Mapping Coalitions which will consider community-based results and ensure service gaps are addressed, so children come to school with stronger skills and less vulnerability.
• RVS is running a community of practice focused on inquiry pla y-based learning. Challenges Hemsworth says her biggest challenge is recruiting qualified staff, particularly therapists, many who are opting to work in private practice. Hemsworth says the y’ve been “lucky” to have attracted talented staff. RVS advertises in publications and websites, through the universities and often through word-of-mouth, leveraging RVS’ growing reputation as a good place to work. She thinks the province could help school divisions recruit therapists by promoting the benefits of working in schools to university programs that train therapists.
Another challenge is the growing need for infrastructure—RVS can manage now, but in time they will need more space to operate preschool programming.
“Ensuring each child makes a successful transition from home to school is a goal for all of us— parents, teachers and the entire school division, “ says Hemsworth.
211
Appendix G: RVS Narrative Rocky View Schools and the Quantum Leap
Roland Barth comments on the common assertion by America’s schools that they are “Communities of Learners,” saying that for him it is both “an ambitious and welcome vision and an empty promissory note.” I must confess that I feel the same way when I hear about schools that have shifted their focus to the 21st century learner. There can be no doubt that our educational institutions are in need of radical change. Where schools have been the transmitters of information in the past, the technological revolution, the Internet, and the world-wide-web have rendered schools redundant in the capacity of the keepers of knowledge. I want to believe that schools are focusing on the 21st century learner, but in too many cases institutions seem, rather, to be re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
When I was invited to visit Rocky View Schools (RVS) to look at what educators there refer to as the system’s transformation I know that I carried not a little skepticism in some mental pocket. However, after spending time interviewing people in the Division and researching what’s happening there, I wanted to come out of retirement and apply for a job in Rocky View Schools. I came awa y convinced that I have, in fact, seen the first fruits of a transformational process that is impressive in its scope, in its depth, and in its authenticity.
Some thirty years ago Margaret Wheatley shed light on what was, for me, a revolutionary world view. Her book, Leadership and the New Science, allowed me to see organizations in the context of the new science of quantum physics. I read everything I could understand (and much that I could not understand) about this fascinating field of research and thinking. There were, thankfully, things that I did understand and recognize as of critical importance to leaders in education.
My visit to RVS, and the dialogue I shared there, evoked the metaphors and the insights I had gained and glimpsed so many years ago in Wheatley’s book. I had the sense that I was actually seeing in the RVS transformation, the kind of organization she envisaged, and that the school district was making the kind of quantum leap that she believed was possible and necessary. I drove home from Airdrie buoyed up b y amazement and optimism for the future of education.
Wheatley’s central theme is that our thinking and our organizations have been created and have operated around the principles of 17th century Newtonian mechanics, a science of parts and separate functions. This mentality has permeated every aspect of society and thought: the universe as a machine, the body as a machine, organizations as machines. Order was imposed. S ystems were monitored for stability. Control was exercised for stasis. Measurements were made of quantifiable elements. Reality was objective and material, known through the physical senses.
The new science finds life not to operate like a machine, but rather to self-organize around an identity and purpose, to change its form continually in order to preserve itself, to work in a seamless whole through constant connections and relationships among and between its parts, to survive by participating in its environment and co-creating that environment, and to be influenced by immaterial elements which can be seen only in the effects they produce...
212
I went back to Leadership and the New Science to test it as a context for interpreting what I saw and heard in Rocky View, and I found the exercise stimulating and informative. Wheatley exhorts us to “ground our work in the science of our times... to expand our search for the principles of organization to include what is presently known about how the universe organizes. Organizations are living systems, possessing the same capacity to adapt and grow that is common to all life.” Wheatley claims that the three influences of Western culture that have kept us from moving into the metaphors of quantum science are “individualism, competition, and a mechanistic world view.”
Many of the aspects of a quantum view of life are expressed and honored by the work that has been done and is proceeding in Rock y View Schools... work in which there is a new kind of freedom, “where it is more rewarding to explore than to reach conclusions, more satisfying to wonder than to know and more exciting to search than to stay put.”
In 2007 a newl y elected board in Rocky View School Division hired Greg Bass as Superintendent of Schools. A Division bulletin describes Bass’s introduction to the jurisdiction this way: “After collectively touring RVS’ 37 school sites, it became apparent to trustees and the Superintendent that the jurisdiction lacked a cohesive vision and a road map forward. The jurisdiction’s [current] plan ... appeared to be a compliance exercise.” The schools were apparently each going their separate ways neither adhering to education plans nor attentive to their annual results reports. “RVS was operating as a community of schools rather than a school community.” (On Track, RVS January, 2012)
In creating a vision, we are creating a power, not a place ...an influence, not a destination. M. Wheatley
Bass is a “systems thinker” and framed his first challenge as that of initiating a collaborative process to forge a vision for the school division. In many organizations a small committee, or even an individual, might create the vision and mission statements. It’s certainly more efficient (a mechanistic value!) and it allows control of the outcome. Bass understands the importance of participation... people support what they create. Wheatley sa ys this about creating identity in an organization:
The work of any team or organization needs to start with a clear sense of what they are trying to accomplish and how they want to behave together... Once this clarity is established, people will use it as their lens to interpret information, surprises, experience. They will be able to figure out what and how to do their work. Their individual decisions will not look the same, and there is no need for conformity in their behavior. But over time, as their individual solutions are fed back into the system, as learning is shared, we can expect that an orderly pattern will emerge. (p. 106)
The magnitude and scope of engaging the stakeholders in this visioning process are described in the following excerpts from the Division bulletin OnTrack:
On April 2, 2007, a comprehensive and collaborative planning process to develop a three-year plan was approved by the Board of Trustees. The process saw 200 stakeholders meet for a full
213
four days over a 13 month period [to answer the questions] “What would a quality education for every student look like by the year 2011? And based on RVS’ current results what would we have to do to ensure we arrived there?
The collaborative process concluded in May of 2008... with a three-year plan that featured a new mission, vision, and motto, six goals, 21 outcomes and 79 strategies. Its theme, “Engaging 21st Century Learners,” solidified a shared vision whereby all members RVS’ school communities were considered “learners.”
The fact that Bass entrusted this work to the community, the amount of time and resources expended to listen, record, and synthesize the data, had the effect of affirming teachers, administrators, parents, students, and community members at large with regard to their importance in the life of the jurisdiction. The emotional investment of the participants further connected them to the shared purposes which were articulated in the process and the future work that needed to be done.
Once articulated, how does vision animate the behaviors, and influence the activities and outcomes of an organization?
The messages about the essential identity and purposes of the organization need to be simplified and entrenched, reinforced and modeled. Wheatley uses field theory as a metaphor for demonstrating how immaterial energy (like that of a magnetic field) influences behaviors in organizations where a clear shared vision and purpose exists.
In a field view of organizations, we attend first to clarity. We must say what we mean and seek for a much deeper integrity in our words and acts than ever before. And we must make sure that everyone has access to this field, that the information is available everywhere. Vision statements move off walls and into corridors, seeking out every employee, ever y recess in the organization. We need to imagine ourselves as beacon towers of information, standing tall in the integrity of what we sa y, pulsing out congruent messages everywhere. (p. 57)
Bass saw to this. He hired a communications director who created symbols and texts in a variety of sophisticated media presentations... posters, bulletins, and blogs...news articles, internal and external digital messaging... comprehensive summaries of everything being undertaken, and explanations of terms and concepts, using mottos, metaphors, and visual images... all tightl y congruent, all widely circulated.
The Portrait of a 21st Century Learner with its list of 11 competencies was mounted on the wall of every administration suite and the front foyer in schools across the jurisdiction... To further promote its new direction, the jurisdiction began releasing white papers around each competency... The theme 21st Century Learner was used as the foundation of RVS’ rebrand, resulting in a new logo, division colours, a mascot and new jurisdictional and school web portals to stimulate collaboration across the district.” (On Track, January, 2012)
214
Everyone in the organization from the grounds keepers (who attend the monthly meetings of central office staff) to the kids, knew what the vision was about. Each person I interviewed could tell me what the Division means by 21st century learner. Everyone knows how the particular work he or she does will look in order to move forward with accomplishing its aims. Everyone knows how his or her work life has changed because of the direction taken.
A central office staff member said in conversation with me, “The aspects of instructional change were explained to everybody, not just the teaching staff... We developed an understanding of what we were doing and why.”
A parent said that she “enjoyed the interactive process at the school level [and felt that] parents had been encouraged to see that the school viewed their perspectives as important.”
A teacher commented that the messaging was “consistent, and insistent.”
A learning specialist asserted that the most important aspect of the transformation was the “buy-in... the engagement of everyone in the process... the collaborative process of defining the direction and goals for the system.”
He described the impact of the school-level process saying, “We had rich and heart-felt discussions. It opened up conversations about what’s important with regard to student learning... people believed that leadership wanted to hear them. As the plan emerged people were re-affirmed that it was our plan. There was ownership for it.”
The Portrait of the 21st Century Learner
The illiterate of the twenty-first century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. —Alvin Toffler
The Division distilled the skills and competencies agreed upon as essential for today’s learners in a document referred to as the Portrait of the 21st Century Learner. The skills and competencies listed there have the emphasis one might expect in terms of thinking skills, problem-solving ability, communication skills and the traditional literacies, as well as media literacy. The elements that might be new to learner expectations are innovation, collaboration, global awareness, civic engagement and self-directed learning.
It’s significant that many of these skills and competencies are centered in student engagement, students’ active participation in their learning. They are processes. The document promises a distinct shift away from the disseminator-of-knowledge methodology (sometimes referred to as the sit ‘n git style) of traditional learning to one which recognizes that the student, rather than the teacher, is the locus of control for learning.
Many schools and jurisdictions have created mission and vision statements that never came to life. But in RVS they did move off the walls and into the corridors, seeking out every employee and every recess in the organization. Wheatley sa ys,
215
We need all of us out there, stating, clarifying, reflecting, modeling, filling all of space with the messages we care about. If we do that, a powerful field develops... and with it, the wondrous capacity to organize into coherent, capable form. (p. 57)
Right from the start the Superintendent walked the talk. He shared his reading and his thoughts. He introduced others to writers and to research that he thought would inform the design of a learning model for the jurisdiction. He brought speakers in and he immersed himself in the investigation of new technologies which might support and amplify the learning in RVS. The Learning Department, researching best practices and successful approaches to instruction and to the design of learning, created a learning model for the jurisdiction which was student centered and aligned with the desired expectations for learners.
A principal comments on the centrality of Learning in the new order of things. It starts at the top. “Greg models the learning. He was the first of us to use twitter. He behaves as a learner. Takes risks.”
If the Portrait of the 21st Century Learner is the picture of what RVS strives to create, the Learning Model is the means by which they hope to achieve that end.
As a Division Learning Specialist explains it:
We are redefining how we believe that learning takes place. The traditional paradigm is the teacher transmission model. We are interested in creating an environment that supports the construction of knowledge. The traditional structure was an efficiency model. We are interested in what motivates the learner, and the relationship between technology and innovation.
The Learning department of RVS created the Learning Model as a ke y driver of the new forms of pedagogy meant to characterize learning communities in classrooms, schools, and the jurisdiction itself. The learning model is based on strong research, and it is learning theory that has been around for decades... divergent thinking, creative problem-solving, inquiry-based learning, real-life investigations and the creation of products for authentic audiences. Cooperative learning, thinking st yles, learning st yles, critical thinking, authentic assessment... the pedagogical elements are not new, only, in some cases, the monikers.
What is new is that teachers in Rocky View Schools are attempting, as a Division, to make these proven methodologies day-to-day practice in all their classrooms at every grade level. All kids are meant to be able to enter the learning with dignity. All kids are meant to have the scaffolding and support to move to the next place on the learning continuum. And all kids are meant to be able to stand up in the learning without bumping the ceiling. The learning is meant to engage them actively in constructing knowledge. Curriculum is not covered, but it is rather uncovered, recovered and discovered.
What’s different in Rocky View Schools is that teachers and teacher assistants are being supported in their attempts to reshape their practice through coaching and training and information flow. They are being encouraged and motivated by the Division and by their
216
colleagues in experimenting and exploring. Like the students themselves, staff members are collaborating in ways where they are, at times, cast as leaders and mentors and, at times, as learners. What is remarkable is the speed and depth with which RVS students and staff are using embracing assistive technology to advance and accomplish their goals. The technology allows them to search, investigate and share information. The technology supports a level of sophisticated collaboration between and among students and teachers, central office staff, and the world community.
Grade three students look up levers on individual iPads to share diagrams and discuss classifying the types of levers. Grade fours take pictures of hoar frost and come back to the classroom to compare the crystals with the ones they find on the Internet. Grade tens video-conference with a group of women in Katar to discuss the way Canadians are seen by other nations. After the formal part of the exchange they enter an informal dialogue with the women, asking them questions based on their concerns and interests. Grade six students write letters to government protesting the sale of the province’s diminishing grasslands. (A mother I spoke with said that when her young son heard the announcement on the radio of the decision not to sell the grasslands in question, he cheered in triumph.) Students are engaged.
At a high school where all students are equipped with a personal Macbook, one finds students in what was once the library, now the Learning Common, where furniture is moveable and all manner of group and individual projects can be worked on. The Student Assistance Area (once a special needs classroom) is for all and any students who require help. Students can collaborate from home on a shared document; they can access teacher notes and submit assignments as well from home. The principal reports that in September of 2009 there were 48 discipline issues that ended up in the office. In the same month of 2010 they were no discipline issues that came to the office. Students are engaged.
Content has been the main focus of curriculum mandates for ministries of education in the past, but content is constantly changing. There are new maps of nation states, new ideas, new planets, and new discoveries. Memorizing information will not serve our kids as they move into their adult lives. They will need skills and processes that prepare them to manipulate information, organize it, interpret it, analyze and evaluate it. Most of all, perhaps, they will be required to access, share, and produce information. The one-right-answer perspective is anachronistic in a participatory universe where there is no such thing as objective reality. We need to see potentialities, connections, relationships, and multiple perspectives. We need to access, test, and trust experiential knowledge. It’s process that must be our focus rather than content. RVS has made that shift in concept and is moving into it in practice.
The high level of collaboration in RVS classrooms allows learners of all ages (including staff members) to participate in projects and experience a level of success in areas where, at times, learners could not succeed independently. Learners are exposed to the ideas and to the thinking of others as thinking processes are verbalized. In this manner, collaboration makes visible the internal cognitive processes of peers and teaches meta-cognition in the exchanges. Learners contribute in various ways, and participants reveal their diverse gifts and talents in the process. Students experience leadership opportunities and confidence grows in all members of the group.
217
These collaborative processes shape attitudes and competencies important for 21st century learners.
Wheatley reminds us, “We don’t accept diversity because we’ve been told it’s the right thing to do. Only as we are engaged together in work that is meaningful do we learn to work through the differences and value them.” (p. l49)
The learning model was not designed solely for students... it’s the Division model. The action research projects operate on the same model. The work of the senior administrators proceeds in the same way. The pervasiveness of learning activity pumps energy into the RVS system. And learning has powerful affective by-products. The activity of learning, when it holds relevance and meaning, produces excitement. It attracts and engages us. The accomplishments of learning result in celebration and pride.
This, above all, characterized the conversations I had with Rocky View staff and students. They were so excited, so passionate about what was happening in the Division. They talked about how they were working so hard, but had never been happier to do so. People going out on leave were reluctant to miss all on the activities of the coming year. Some employees, who had been poised to retire, changed their plans. Many told me that the last few years had been the best years of their work lives.
In the universe that new science is exploring, information ... is a dynamic, changing element, taking center stage.
Wheatley underlines the importance of sharing and generating information in a living system:
Without information, life cannot give birth to anything new. All life uses information to organize itself into form. A living being is not a stable structure, but a continuous process of organizing information...One of an organization’s most critical competencies is to create the conditions that both generate new knowledge and help it to be freely shared. (p. 95, p. 110)
Many structures and processes in RVS are dedicated to producing and sharing information. From the center of the learning model itself, which focuses on learners constructing and sharing information through real-life investigations and the production of authentic products, to the ongoing meetings of stakeholders revisiting the changing s ystem as it develops, information courses through the system.
A central office staff member reflects on the impact of being in the information loop: “Information was shared. I got to see the big picture. There was a flow of information. Transparency. Greg kept us apprised of what was happening. There were monthly meetings that included everyone. The grounds-keepers were there. Greg took the time to tell me... to ask me and include me.”
Another staff member says, “Because we all have input and we get continuous feedback, because things are transparent, trust has developed throughout the system.”
218
Central office staff are permitted one day a month (Travelling Tuesdays) to spend time at any school of their choice in the Division. Employees remarked on the value of these visits, which reinforce and connect them to the meaning of their work and their contributions, when they see what students are learning and doing at the classroom level. On certain days, schools showcase for other school and district administrators what is happening in their own building. The Division website, RVS Tube, descriptions of the action research projects, the student and staff e-portfolios and the Communities of Practice are only some of the many positive feedback loops.
Over the past five years a massive infusion of assistive technology has amplified and accelerated the exchanges of information within the jurisdiction and with the outside world. OnTrack reported in January of 2012:
Technology-based platforms have been introduced and implemented to assist teachers to fully engage students in authentic learning facilitated by the thoughtful uses of technology. Reflecting RVS’ mantra “ant time, any place, an y path, any pace” mantra, Google Apps, have been launched along with Desire to Learn, Moodle, Apple Wiki, Bridgit, ePearl, Podcast Producer, Mahara, RVS Tube, student blogs and video conferencing. Two resource collections have been developed: RVS’ Resource Collection is a starting place for teachers to find inter-disciplinary/cross curricular collections of resources, and RVS’ Resource Server which houses various forms of content, that if housed elsewhere would impede accessibility.
These technologies, along with the use of interactive white boards, classroom carts of iPads, iPods, digital cameras and laptops, continue to engage students and teachers in collaborative, project-based learning, where self and peer assessment are becoming the norm rather than the exception. [At least one high school provides MacBooks for every student.]
A veteran teacher commented on the early months of the changes: “Some of the teachers were intimidated and tentative about embracing the changes, but not me! The message was embraced in different degrees in different schools... There was definitely a steep learning curve for everyone.”
“It wasn’t eas y, undertaking this degree of change,” a school administrator reflects. “We questioned the role of school, the role of teachers and administrators. There was certainly a degree of trepidation. It was uncomfortable but exciting.”
It was clear to ever yone from the onset that the shift in thinking and in practice would be challenging for most teachers, for administrators in schools, and in central office. The science of living things informs us about how systems grow and develop... about how they adapt and thrive. We know that information is vital to survival as are nourishment and support. RVS made the information, the training, technological support and human support available as fast as it could be mustered.
The Board adjusted the school calendar to move from 5 to 10 professional learning days. Seven of these days are school-based learning days to support the work emerging from school
219
education plans, and three days are centrally coordinated that allow staff members to join or create Communities of Practice to pursue self-determined areas of learning. The jurisdiction has also developed professional learning programs for beginning teacher mentorships, a Teachers Plus series and an Administrative Leadership Program with five strands for aspiring administrative candidates, new administrators, assistant principals, and veteran administrators.
Learning Facilitators and embedded coaching teams were set up. In the beginning these teams, comprised of a curriculum specialist, a technology specialist and a student services specialist, spent 12 to 18 weeks in schools working with groups of teachers to build their understanding of the key concepts in the Learning Model: understanding by design, universal design for learning and balanced assessment. All teachers were equipped with a Macbook and all sites, over a two year period, would become wireless environments.
And it wasn’t only teachers who were involved in learning. A central office administrator referred to the challenges that came with the changes. “The learning curve was steep, but it was deep learning... learning over time. We followed a professional learning theme (constructivist learning) over the course of five or 6 full days throughout the year. The learning was infused with practice and exploration, conversation and reflection. I’d never worked so hard, but I was enjoying it.”
A school Principal says, “They ask a lot of me but I know I can make mistakes and I know that I will get support. People appreciate that we continue to break boundaries. I have yet to be told, no.”
An executive assistant reminded me that she started her work life with a manual typewriter. “I began to learn aspects of digital technology. I learned about and became proficient in Google Docs, Mahara, and understood Moodle. In Community of Practice sessions I taught Mahara and the use of Google Docs to secretaries who wanted to gain skills in the use of these programs.”
“Greg infused Cove y training in the Division. He invested in training 14 trainers. I was trained as a Covey leader. Me! A support staff member! I felt valued.”
Just as the students are engaged in constructing knowledge, so the Division as a whole is engaged in exploring and experimenting and generating information. Beginning in 2010, RVS set revenues aside to fund research that focused on improving student learning. Grants were created for the use of innovative technology and for excellence in learning. The grants covered capital costs and instructional resources with the schools covering professional learning costs. A team of school administrators reviewed proposals from the schools and recommended the projects for funding. Formal research findings were to be submitted at the end of the research term. Comprehensive reports of the projects are accessible on the jurisdiction website. These projects have been of keen interest to teachers and administrators throughout the district. When asked what would happen if every school wanted to replicate an expensive project, the head of the Learning Department replied that it would be a “great problem” to be faced with.
220
It is telling that the Learning Department reorganized itself continuously over three years to build teachers’ competencies around the learning model and 21st century learner. This responsiveness of the organization, adapting forms and structures to meet new demands, imitates the adaptation of living organisms to the internal and external changes in environment. This is only one of many examples of RVS’ openness to change as it responds to the disequilibrium inherent in growth and development.
The Critical Importance of Self-Determination RVS Senior administrators understood that the District’s vision would take a different shape in each school and they had the wisdom to encourage that diversity. Wheatley quotes Jantsch regarding the critical element of self-determination as life organizes around identity and purpose:
Effective self-organization is supported by two critical elements: a clear sense of identity, and freedom. In organizations, if people are free to make their own decisions, guided b y a clear organizational identity for them to reference, the whole system develops greater coherence and strength. The organization is less controlling, but more orderly. (p.87)
Once the first set of three-year goals had been established, school administrators took on a process similar to the one the system had undergone. School communities met to discuss how the needs of 21st century learners could be addressed in the particular context of their own schools. This highly participatory and collaborative process energized school communities and heightened the commitment of staff and parents to journey in the new direction.
A principal describes the way the jurisdiction mandate meets the school-level response. “There’s both a top down and a bottom up meeting of goals and directions.” The over-arching goals were set in the beginning b y all the stakeholders, so top down didn’t mean “imposed” from above. It meant clarity and articulation of the broad outcomes, the big picture. The schools then designed their specific goals from the context of their unique school community to reflect the Division goals.
Because of the combination of a clear direction and the freedom to self-determine, a wonderful variety of expressions is evolving across school communities. One school is centrally focused on environmental concerns and projects. The school community grows historical grass species that are endangered, maintains a community garden, and uses this focus for projects of inquiry and exploration. In another school the arts are a primary focus for study and projects. Community members involved in various artistic endeavors partner with staff to provide exciting and relevant opportunities for student participation and learning. These diverse expressions of the Division’s core beliefs and goals are encouraged and celebrated. Shining the light on successes is another form of self-reference which strengthens and amplifies growth and development around the Division’s new identity and purposes.
“Preaching to the choir,” Wheatley tells us, “is exactly the right thing to do.... help those who already share certain beliefs and dreams sing their song a little clearer, a little more confidently...support those first courageous voices and encourage them to put it out on their own airwaves... we gain courage from learning we’re part of the choir. We sing better when we know we’re not alone.” (p. 151)
221
We know that to be viable, systems must be self-referencing... that behaviors and activities and changes must always serve the “self” that has been created. In organizations the greatest nourishment is information... external information (about the context of the organism, its environment), and internal information generated by the organism itself. Everything that was and is undertaken in RVS references the new identity and purpose created by the stakeholders and articulated by the Division.
RVS has restructured to create greater emphasis on learning and the learner. Every aspect of the Division’s work references the student and the learning model at the heart of the transformation. Whether one looks at budget or at hiring, at the uses of space in the schools or how technology is employed... whether one considers the needs of particular students, transportation or the involvement of parents... the questions is always about how decision-making will support and enhance the movement towards learners becoming more engaged, enriched and empowered in terms of the competencies for 21st century citizens.
Measurement and Planning Planning advocates now speak about strategic thinking rather than strategic planning. Wheatley puts forward Weick’s suggestion of a new perspective on organizational analysis in which acting precedes planning. Until we put things in motion we cannot formulate thoughts and plans. It is in the process that we discover what is needed and what comes next. It is the clear purpose and identity that allow us to self-reference to make just-in-time decisions and plans.
Although RVS spends a great deal of time and energy in creating its three-year plans, they are essentially process-oriented plans, centered around strategies, rather than plans focused on predetermined outcomes. RVS, for example, resisted the traditional “increase in standardized testing scores” as markers of accomplishment of their new goals. The Board approved a revised policy which outlined a shift away from standardized testing to a more holistic approach to assessment. This decision alone demonstrates that administration understood that by referencing standardized measures as indicators of success, they would simply allow the “one-right-answer” mentality of traditional schooling to come in by the back door and distort the portrait of the 2lst century learner.
In quantum physics measurement poses new and paradoxical challenges. In the absence of “objective reality” we find ourselves grappling with the question of how to “know something” when, in fact, the knower/inquirer influences the observation. The Newtonian science encouraged our belief in objective measurement and 21st century scientists predict that only a vigilant and impassioned struggle will free us from the conceptual hold it has on us.
Fred Wolf says that “knowing is disrupting.” Every time we go to measure something, we interfere. What we see is determined by what we decide to measure.
Physicist Jon Wheeler says that every act of measurement loses more information than it gains. If we focus on quantitative measures, we doom ourselves only to frustration. The information never ends, it is never complete, we accumulate more and more but understand less and less... Deep inside the details, we cannot see the whole. To understand and work with the system, we need to
222
be able to observe it as a system, in its wholeness. Wholeness is revealed only as shapes, not as facts. S ystems reveal themselves as patterns, not as isolated incidents or data points. (Capra, 1996)
For leaders, being alert to the observation dilemma is critically important. Management is addicted to numbers, taking frequent pulses of the organization in surveys, monthly progress checks, quarterly reports, yearly evaluations. It is important to stay aware to the realization that no form of measurement is neutral. (Wheatley, p. 64)
The Associate Superintendent of Learning for Rocky View Schools describes a cadence of accountability which is a comprehensive circulatory s ystem of feedback loops. “The Ed plan review is done one-on-one with principals in the spring and the annual results meeting takes place in the fall where principals share with four or five central office administrators what they have accomplished. The Schools Department hosts Principals’ Reflections which involve administrators in sharing their portfolios they create around the Principals’ Quality Standards.”
Teachers, and all school staff, are accountable to their principals to contribute to advancing the aims of the school ‘s education plan. They prepare individual professional growth plans. Teachers are accountable to central office administrators for follow through on the research projects in which they participate, and to colleagues with whom they engage in Communities of Practice. They are accountable to parents with whom they have forged the shared vision and agreements.
The superintendent, central office administrators, and all staff are accountable to school staff members to provide the support they need and allow the self-determination they expect, to do the job they have been given. Principals sit on Superintendent Working Committees. Senior administration is accountable to the Board and the public to strive to keep RVS an open system continually progressing in the direction that has been collectively imagined and agreed upon.
These complex and multi-layered feedback loops provide a flow of information and self- referencing which is vital to the energy and the monitoring of the system. This dynamic data informs the on-going development of the organization towards its goals more reliably and authentically than traditional measurements can. The organizational intelligence is fed by this kind of active assessment. It captures what counts, rather than what can be counted.
I see RVS’ organizational management as focused on purposeful and continuous observation of what is unfolding and on making the shifts and reinforcements necessary to keep feeding and supporting the growth and development emerging in its many forms. It seems to me they exemplify Wheatley’s jazz metaphor of the nature of the quantum world... a world that demands “that we be present together and be willing to improvise. We agree on the melody, tempo, and key, and then we pla y. We listen carefully, we communicate constantly and suddenly there is music.”
Assessing the wholeness of a system requires attention to recurring behaviors, to trends and themes. It requires time and distance. That’s the rub! A scientist will, when she’s forty, perhaps, describe to graduate students how her grade four teacher took them outside to photograph ice
223
crystals... a doctor in his fifties will tell how a video-conference with women in Katar was influential in his decision years later to practice medicine in India and an environmental activist will recall some protected acres of sweet grasslands. An entrepreneur will describe a middle- school project she did with two friends as the genesis of her passion for creating a string of successful businesses in her adult life.
Being present in the moment does not mean that we act without intention or flow directionless through life without plans. But we would do better to attend more carefully to the process by which we create our plans and intentions. We need to see these plans, standards, organization charts not as objects that we complete, but as processes that enable a group to keep clarifying its intent and strengthening its connections to new people and to new information. (p. 155)
If a 21st century leader needs to be able to “escape the seduction of examining isolated factors,” my mone y is on Bass who told me that he dreams of the day teachers will skip to class. That’s actually right in line with the measurement concepts that operate in the new science!
Leadership and the New Science We see that leadership arises throughout an organization which lives, and that the role of the leader is often that of learner, supporter, even cheerleader. Still, the individual at the helm of an organization is of critical importance to its transformation. One member of RVS made this unsolicited remark about the changes in the jurisdiction: The leadership style has been key to the transformation and will continue to be.
The initial work of a leader is to support the community in terms of establishing values, purpose and agreements. The leader must embody the fundamental principles of the organization and help its members to be reflective about their actions and decisions. Practical supports, resources and training, provide scaffolding as community members learn to live by their values. Individuals must have the freedom to contribute in their own unique manner. And finally, organizational leaders need to continually invite participation and contributions by its members. Wheatley reminds us that the motivation for individual change is not in response “to the boss’s demand.”
A larger context has emerged because of the collaborative process [which established the new vision/direction]. It is this context that motivates people to change. They have developed a deeper awareness of the work... they want the work to be more effective, and they now see how the y individually can better contribute to that outcome. (p. l44)
In Bass’s leadership one sees all of the above elements, and it was with admiration and gratitude that employees (people he would refer to as colleagues) spoke of him. “Greg values innovation. There was permission to do stuff.” “Greg “doesn’t meddle.” He understands that he can’t have his finger in every pie.” “Early on Greg re-designed the division itself to put the learning at the center of everything.” “I could see that he really was going where no man had gone before.” “Greg is visionary. When you invite people to keep envisioning the future, deciding what will happen in the next 3 years you know there will be innovation.”
224
“Greg sa ys there’s no destination. There’s direction. The support is going to be there.” “I feel fortunate that Greg has involved me in both sets of plans.” “Once someone is hired he or she is given freedom and responsibility. “We have the opportunity to initiate work.” “There is no roadmap. You have to be comfortable with that open space. The fact that there’s no path, no model, means there is discomfort, but there’s also freedom.”
Wheatley believes that “those leaders who help us center our work in a deeper purpose are leaders we cherish,” and it does appear that Bass has given people the opportunity to see meaning in their contributions and efforts. It’s interesting that, to some degree, Bass sees his job now as “just staying out of the way.” Wheatley says we move along the path by “maintaining a coherent identity and honouring ever ybod y’s need for self-determination.”
Certainly in RVS, as in any organization undergoing genuine transformation, growth progresses along a ragged and uneven front. Some individuals and groups will be striding out in front while others move more methodically and cautiously. Still others will struggle and straggle... will need encouragement and prompting. This is apparent in Rocky View, but the surprise, according to Bass, is really the lack of a pushback, the momentum of the change. He obviously believes in the process and is optimistic, as are many of those who work with him. Bass’s leadership style demonstrates his trust that experimentation and exploration, collaborative problem-solving and reflective decision-making will keep RVS growing and developing with heart and energy towards the goals the organization has imagined for its students. His personal style demonstrates that he can dance on a moving floor.
225
Appendix H: Alberta Education Letter of Results January 10, 2012
Mr. Greg Bass, Superintendent Rocky View School Division 2651 Chinook Winds Drive Airdrie, AB, T4B 0B4
Dear Greg,
I appreciated very much the opportunity to meet with you on December 20, 2011, at which time we were able to speak at length about the achievements of Rocky View Schools as noted in your Annual Education Results Report and the challenges going forward as your division continues in Its quest to develop 21st Century learning environments characterized by high levels of stakeholder engagement and excellence in student teaming outcomes.
On the topic of the accountability pillar report, Rocky View Schools has been able to demonstrated consistently high level of performance. Provincial Achievement Test scores at the acceptable level and Diploma Exam performance by students at both the acceptable level and the level of excellence remain, generally speaking, well above the average in the province. In virtually all Provincial Achievement Testing over the past five years, Rocky View students have demonstrated improved performance. In other performance areas, Rocky View parents and students have expressed high satisfaction with the variety and breadth of program offerings, parent survey responses to questions about school improvement and about how school helps prepare students for citizenship show significant Improvement. It is similarly evident that the Alberta Initiative for School improvement focus In Rocky View, “Excellence in 21st Century Learning” has been a positive influence in helping teachers, students and parents alike understand how the principles of balanced student assessment, understanding by design and universal design for learning should work together as the system develops learning environments accessible to all learners.
Greg, I find the development and continuing use of the Rocky View Schools’ local accountability pillar a particular strength of your jurisdiction and certainly commend its use as an important part of the planning and reporting c ycle for your jurisdiction. As your report indicates, your school system community celebrates significant evidence of progress across Rocky View’s six priority goal areas.
Finally, I appreciated your insight and observations about those areas of performance where the division recognizes a need for more directed intervention and am certainly willing to chat further with you about ways in which the department might be able to provide related support.
In man y wa ys, Rock y View’s work is closely aligned with the Ministry’s strategic priorities. The opportunity exists for collaboration on a number of fronts, not the least of which would be in the areas of inclusion, high school completion, research and excellence in teaching and leadership. As a school authority recognized as a change agent by the Ministry, Rock y View is contributing
226
to the development of provincial strategies for ensuring inclusive learning environments. Your division makes a significant investment in research by working with post-secondary partners and with Alberta Education to support continuous improvement. Your system’s strong support for evidence based instructional practices and for innovative action research by teachers and teacher- leader teams contributes to a culture of continuous improvement where all staff are accountable for improving their practice in accordance with new learning. Your system work focused on the personalization of learning is exciting. The involvement of Springbank Community High School in a high school re-design project represents a further example of how both your division and Alberta Education will be able to collaborate and learn together about ways to organize learning that will be much more likely to engage students and lead to improved course completion, improved transition to post-secondary and, of course, higher school completion rates.
As you acknowledge in your annual report documents, the volume of change and the success you have realized as a jurisdiction over the past year would not be possible without the understanding and support of your stakeholders. I am aware that your board recognizes the critical importance of engaging stakeholders in the business of planning education in Rocky View Schools and that the division regularly organizes forums, venues and online opportunities for constituents to learn, inquire and contribute to decision making. From my experience with ASBA Zone 5, I know that the discussion about “generative governance” is an important one for your board and for others in the zone. Certainly, I will remain interested in learning more from you and your jurisdiction about how the strategic focus on community engagement and generative governance contributes to the development of the 21st Century Learning Organization you are creating in Rock y View Schools.
Greg, as you and I discussed at our meeting, I would like to proceed with the idea of having Alberta Education profile Rocky View Schools as a provincial leader in the development of 21st Century learning environments for students and teachers. This undertaking would, from my point of view, help your school authority celebrate its many successes on this journey but could also be instructive for the Ministry as it seeks to learn about and understand the challenges associated with transformational change of this magnitude. I appreciated your positive reaction to this idea and will chat with you again soon to follow up.
Best wishes and thanks again for making time in your calendar for our discussion.
Sincerely,
Randy Clarke cc: Bruce Pettigrew, Board Chair Rick Hayes, Executive Director
227
group RVS Province RVS Province RVS Province RVS Province
Note. Alberta Education evaluation: Improved Significantly. Numbers are percentages.
229
Table I7 Percentage of Grades 3, 6, and 9 Acceptable Standard on PATs
2007–2008 2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2011
Subject RVS Province RVS Province RVS Province RVS Province LA 3 83.4 80.1 83.8 81.3 87.2 81.6 85.6 81.8 LA (FI) 3 N/A N/A 75.6 83.8 90.7 84.1 77.5 80.6 Math 3 81.4 78.7 79.9 79.6 83.0 76.4 76.6 77.4 LA 6 84.0 81.1 84.1 81.8 85.3 83.3 85.5 83.0 LA (FI) 6 92.9 87.7 89.5 91.5 81.2 88.3 88.1 89.4 Math 6 75.5 74.6 77.8 76.6 74.9 74.4 75.0 73.7 Science 6 75.9 74.8 79.1 76.5 77.3 76.8 79.1 76.2 Social 6 79.3 77.9 84.2 65.8 70.7 71.0 76.3 71.1 LA 9 80.6 76.5 82.0 78.7 84.6 79.3 83.2 79.1 LA (FI) 9 78.0 84.5 59.2 81.8 83.0 86.1 83.0 88.8 Math 9 70.7 65.7 68.8 67.0 67.8 66.4 68.0 66.1 Science 9 72.6 69.3 75.1 72.2 80.3 73.6 78.4 74.8 Social 9 76.2 71.7 66.3 65.5 72.5 68.9 69.4 67.2
Note. Alberta Education evaluation: Maintained. LA = Language Arts. LA (FI) = Language Arts (French Immersion).
Table I8
Percentage of Grades 3, 6, and 9 Excellence Standard on PATs
2007–2008 2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2011
Subject RVS Province RVS Province RVS Province RVS Province LA 3 16.6 16.1 12.4 18.2 14.8 19.5 17.0 17.5 LA (FI) 3 N/A N/A 10.0 15.8 12.6 16.3 11.9 15.8 Math 3 22.1 23.9 22.5 26.8 22.2 24.8 21.5 26.0 LA 6 16.7 21.0 11.7 18.9 15.6 18.9 14.9 18.5 LA (FI) 6 9.7 14.2 10.5 15.9 9.4 15.9 11.2 17.1 Math 6 11.3 15.9 11.5 16.8 12.7 16.5 15.4 17.8 Science 6 20.6 24.1 19.0 24.8 23.5 26.4 24.3 25.0 Social 6 17.0 23.8 21.6 21.4 10.9 16.4 16.7 18.5 LA 9 14.0 14.8 11.2 14.7 12.1 15.0 12.8 16.3 LA (FI) 9 13.2 12.4 2.8 10.3 3.4 12.4 9.8 15.0 Math 9 20.2 18.5 18.1 18.5 18.8 19.8 15.4 17.3 Science 9 10.6 13.0 14.1 15.8 19.0 17.7 18.3 20.8
Social9 18.5 18.9 11.6 20.9 15.7 18.8 14.0 19.0 Note. Alberta Education evaluation: Improved. LA = Language Arts. LA (FI) = Language Arts (French Instruction).
230
Table I9 Percentage of Acceptable Achievement on Diploma Exams
2007–2008 2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2011
Subject RVS Province RVS Province RVS Province RVS Province English 30-1 91.5 87.1 87.8 86.1 89.7 84.9 88.3 84.4 English 30-2 88.6 88.8 90.2 88.2 95.4 88.7 92.2 88.6 French 30 93.1 94.9 95.1 95.1 97.3 93.7 82.8 95.3 Social 30-1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 85.8 84.5 87.0 82.8 Social 30-2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 92.0 85.0 91.2 85.6 Math 30 P 85.3 81.4 88.9 82.1 90.7 82.8 85.6 81.0 Math 30 A 84.6 76.3 84.5 79.4 85.2 77.3 80.1 74.3 Biology 30 86.8 82.3 85.1 83.0 84.2 81.4 84.1 81.9 Chemistry 30* N/A N/A 81.8 76.3 82.6 79.0 85.9 75.1 Physics 30* N/A N/A 88.4 79.3 80.4 74.0 79.0 76.7
Science30 91.5 88.6 88.4 86.0 78.9 80.1 81.8 80.3 Note. Alberta Education evaluation: Maintained. Math 30 P indicates pure math; Math 30 A indicates applied math.*Chemistry 30 and Physics 30 percentages from 2004–2008 reflect exams no longer in use.
Table I10
Percentage of Excellence Achievement on Diploma Exams
2007–2008 2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2011 Subject RVS Province RVS Province RVS Province RVS Province
Science30 20.4 21.7 14.4 20.9 21.1 22.8 16.6 21.0 Note. Alberta Education evaluation: Maintained. Math 30 P indicates pure math; Math 30 A indicates applied math.*Chemistry 30 and Physics 30 percentages from 2004–2008 reflect exams no longer in use.
231
Table I11
Grade 12 Students Eligible for a Rutherford Scholarship
